TMI Blog1981 (2) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion filed on 16-10-1971. Along with this application there was a prayer for amendment of the plaint for recovery of damages from the fourth defendant. As in the present appeal we are concerned only with the fourth defendant, it is unnecessary to notice the defence of the other defendants except to say that they claimed title to the suit property. The fourth defendant in her written statement contended that the property belonged to an inamdar by name Siviii Rarnachandra Katae Rao Sahib and that his son issued a Datla to her in respect of the suit land. She claimed to have been in possession thereof to the extent of 2 acres and 61 cents. The plaintiff, according to her, entered into a sale deed for the purchase of the property for As. 2000 but had actual1y paid only ₹ 800 retaining the balance for being paid after peaceful possession of the property was obtained. It was contended that as he had not honored the contract, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief as against her. There was also a plea of limitation. 2. The learned District Munsiff found that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of declaration or injunction or to the relief for recovery of possession ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty on 30th Sept., 1954 from the defendant. One Manickam Pillai agreed, to sell to the defendant Survey No. 21/2 and to one Raiammal and others Survey No. 20/14. Sale deeds were executed by Manickarn Pillai as per the agreement. When the sale deed was actually written in favour of the defendant in respect of S. No. 2112, Survey No. 20/14 was wrongly inserted, A similar mistake occurred. in the sale deed in favour of Rajamnial. In spite of this mistake, the defendant was enjoying survey No. 21/2 while Rajammal was enjoying survey No. 20/14. the mistake was subsequently found out and rectification deeds were executed on 5-8-1954. The plaintiff, a relation the defendant, was hostile to Rajammal husband on coming to know of the mistake in the sale deeds executed by Manickam Pillai and with a view to giving trouble to Raiammal's husband, he entered into a sale deed with the defendant in respect of Survey No. 20/14. He filed a suit against Rajammal and others for declaration of his title and in the alternative for possession. Having lost in all the courts he filed the suit which came on second appeal to this court before Kailasam J. for recovery of sale price and for the expenses in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis of the belief in the said representation. In the present case in view of the finding given above, it is clear that the Plaintiff had not acted on the basis of any representation and he deliberately purchased the property with a view to speculate on a litigation. In such a case, the principle laid down by Kailasam J. would clearly apply and the plaintiff would not be entitled to damages. 7. Even assuming that the plaintiff would be entitled to damages, the question may be gone into. The matter has been considered in several decisions of this court. It is unnecessary to go into any decision rendered prior to the case in Subbaraya Reddiar v. Rajagopala Reddiar, ILR 38 Mad 887: AIR 1915 Mad 708. In that case a person who had title to a certain immovable property, voidable at the option of another sold it to a third party and put the third party in possession. The Person who had the option brought a suit against the vendor as well as the purchaser and got a decree and obtained possession thereof in execution. The third party then filed a suit against his vendor for return of the purchase money. The question related to the period of limitation applicable to such a case. At page 88 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Rajagopala Reddiar, ILR 38 Mad 897: AIR 1915 Mad 708 was specifically approved by the Supreme Court in Ramaswami v. Muthukrishna. [1966]3SCR608 . In that case, the suit properties belonged to the second and third defendants. The second defendant sold the properties to one Mr. Sarrna by a sale deed, dated 12th Dec., 1912, which he executed for himself and as guardian of the third defendant. There was an indemnity bond against any loss that might be caused to the vendee in case the sale of his minor's share should later on be set aside. The purchaser's son sold the property to the father of the plaintiffs and assigned also the indemnity bond. The third defendant. the quondam minor, after attaining majority filed a suit for setting aside, he sale deed and his suit was decreed. The plaintiffs then brought the suit which went on appeal to the Supreme Court alleging that they had sustained damages by the loss of one half of tile suit properties and that they were entitled to recover the same from the second defendant, the father, personally and out of his properties. The plaintiff's suit was decreed and on appeal this court modified the decree and limited the quantum of dam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
