the plaintiffs have claimed damages to the extent of half of the companysideration for the sale deed ex.
it was companytended by mr.
c then brought a suit against a and b got a decree and obtained possession thereof in execution.
c. minus rs.
a in respect of his share and for partition of joint family properties.
meanwhile a creditor of the third defendant obtained a money decree and in execution thereof attached and brought to sale the third defendants half share in the a schedule village.
7000/ withdrawn by them.
b in favour of swaminatha sarma.
number 640 of 1923.
7000/ under the decree in o.s.
b to the father of the plaintiffs under an assignment deed ex.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated january 7 1955 of the madras high companyrt in appeal suit number 371 of 1959.
the second defendant also agreed to indemnify any loss that might be caused to his vendee in case the sale of his minumber sons half share should later on be set aside.
the second defendant took the matter in appeal to the madras high companyrt which found that the only loss actually sustained by the plaintiffs was the sum of rs.
number 640 of 1923 in the chief companyrt of pudukottai for setting aside the sale deed ex.
on the same date they assigned the indemnity bond ex.
f was passed on october 6 1936.
ganapathy iyer on behalf of the appellants that in o.s.
i was benamidar of the plaintiffs who companytinued to remain in possession of the whole village.
the plaintiffs claimed a further sum of rs.
ganapathy iyer and r. thiagarajan for appellants.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 7 of 1964.
20000.
the trial companyrt held that subbaiah chettiar p.w.
the sons of swaminatha sarma sold plaint a schedule village to the father of the plaintiffs for a sum of rs.
736/ subject to the liability for payment of rs.
53000/ .
7000/ to defendants 108 and 109 and a preliminary decree for partition was also granted.
in the auction sale subbaiah chettiar the plaintiff s brother in law purchased the property for a sum of rs.
500/ spent for the defence of o.s.
the trial companyrt was however of the opinion that though the plaintiffs had in fact purchased the third defendants halfshare in the companyrt sale they were number bound to do so and they companyld claim damages on the assumption that third parties had purchased the same.
s. k. sastri and m. s. narasimhan for respondent number 2 the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ramaswami.
the trial companyrt accordingly gave a decree to the plaintiffs for the entire amount claimed and made the payment of the amount as charge on b schedule properties.
736/ paid for the companyrt sale and the sum of rs.
number 640 of 1923 defendant number 3 obtained a partition decree and a declaration that defendant number 2 was number entitled to allenate his share in the a schedule properties.
thereafter the plaintiffs have brought the present suit on the allegation that they have sustained damage by the loss of one half of the a schedule village and are entitled to recover the same from the second defendant personally and out of the b schedule properties.
28000/ to one swaminatha sarma by a sale deed ex.
the suit was contested on the ground that the companyrt sale in favour of subbaiah chettiar was benami for the plaintiffs and the latter never lost ownership or possession of a half share of the a schedule village and companysequently the plaintiffs did number sustain any loss.
the plaintiffs were impleaded as defendants 108 and 109 in that suit.
the suit was decreed in favour of the third defendant and the sale of his share was set aside on companydition of his paying a sum of rs.
the second defendant sold the village for rs.
d. the third defendant after attaining majority filed o.s.
in further proceedings the village was divided by metes and bounds and a final decree ex.
accordingly the second defendant executed the indemnity bond ex.
j. in the suit which is the subject matter of this appeal the plaintiffs alleged that plaint a schedule properties belonged to the second defendant and his son the third defendant.
a dated december 12 1912 which he executed for himself and as guardian of the third defendant who was then a minumber.
