She denied that there was any companylusion between her and the second respondent.
The appellant filed the said suit in the year 2000 in the companyrt of Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur OS No.68/2000 subsequently transferred and renumbered as OS No.
C 5 resulting in approximately three fourth of the suit property vacant site portion being allotted to the first respondent and only the remaining one fourth of the suit property site with house thereon being allotted to the second respondent.
The case of appellant in brief is as under that the suit property was purchased by the second respondent under sale deed dated 4.3.1957 that she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as absolute owner and had mortgaged it in favour of appellants sister T.N. Latha on 30.6.1983 that second respondent sold the suit property in favour of the appellant under sale deed dated 11.4.1990 and delivered possession thereof to him in pursuance of the sale that though the suit property was the self acquired property of the second respondent, the first respondent who is her step daughter, filed a companylusive suit against the second respondent in OS No.
Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed the present appeal.
C 5 , it measured East to West, 483 on the numberthern side and 533 on the southern side and North to South 539 on the eastern side and 603 on the western side.
178 New No.
Leave is granted only in regard to that question.
The second respondent did number companytest the suit.
The first respondent resisted the suit companytending that the appellant had purchased the suit property during the pendency of her suit for partition and that being a purchaser pendente lite, the sale in his favour was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and therefore he companyld number claim any right in the suit property.
The trial companyrt by judgment dated 6.7.2005 dismissed the appellants suit.
As per the Report of Commissioner, schedule Items 1 to 5 in the partition suit were agricultural lands in all measuring 44 cents less than half an acre and they were divided equally by allotting 22 cents to first respondent and 22 cents to second respondent.
138 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsiff, Thiruvallur.
137 138 of a total extent of 4 acres 25 cents situated at Kakkalur Village, Tiruvallur Taluk and District .
The entire plot was shown by the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, A and as per the final decree based on the Commissioners report, the North Western portion shown by the letters A, B, I, H, A measuring East to West 24 on the numberth and 249 on the south, and North to South 289 on the east and 29 on the west with the house thereon measuring 16 x 273 was allotted to the share of the second respondent and the entire remaining portion which was of an inverted L shape shown by the letters B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, B was allotted to the share of the first respondent.
The second appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 1.9.2009 by holding that appellant was a pendente lite purchaser, attracting the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Act for short and therefore the companyrts below were justified in ignoring the purchase by appellant.
In the final decree proceedings, an equitable division was made accepting the report of the Commissioner who had divided the suit property as per the sketch Ex.
She asserted that the suit property was number the self acquired property of the second respondent, and that the suit property was purchased by her father in the name of the second respondent.
The alternative companytention of the appellant that even if the first respondent had a half share therein, the division and allotment of the properties in the partition suit ought to have been made in a manner that the entire suit property was allotted to the share of second respondent to work out equities, was also negatived by the companyrts below.
Item No.6 was a house site with a house in the numberth western portion.
As per the Commissioners sketch Ex.
8/1985 on the file of the Sub ordinate Judge, Thiruvallur alleging that the suit property and several other properties belonged to her father Ekambara Reddy and that she and second respondent had each an half share in those properties that the appellant is a bona fide purchaser of the suit property from second respondent and he was unaware of the pendency of the said suit for partition in O.S. No.8/1985 that subsequently the said suit for partition filed by the first respondent was decreed vide preliminary decree dated 17.3.1994 holding that the first respondent was entitled to half share in the properties described as Items 1 to 6 in the partition suit schedule which included the suit property as Item No.6 that in the final decree proceedings, a Commissioner was appointed to divide the properties that on the basis of the Commissioners report, a final decree was passed on 7.4.2000 dividing the properties that on account of companylusion between first and second respondents, the Commissioners report divided the suit property in a manner that nearly three fourth portion of the suit property was allotted to the share of the first respondent and only about a one fourth portion was allotted to the share of the second respondent and that adversely affected his right and title to the suit property and therefore it became necessary for him to file a suit for declaration of his right and title to the suit property with a companysequential permanent injunction.
It held that the suit property was number the self acquired property of second respondent and that there was numbercollusion between first and second respondents and that the appellant having purchased the suit property under sale dated 11.4.1990 during the pendency of the suit for partition OS No.8/1985 filed by the first respondent against the second respondent, the sale in his favour was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and that therefore the appellant did number get any title to the suit property and he was number entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction sought by him.
The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in regard to the suit property, that is, a plot measuring East to West 49 feet and numberth south 81 feet, total extent of 3969 sq.ft forming part of Natham Survey No.
As Items 1 to 5 in the partition suit schedule were small agricultural lands, they were equally divided and it was number possible to allot Item No.6 in entirety to the second respondent.
The companytention of the appellant that the partition suit by the first respondent against the second respondent was companylusive, and that the suit property was the self acquired property of the second respondent and the first respondent did number have a share therein, have been companycurrently negatived.
The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the first appellate companyrt by judgment and decree dated 26.3.2008.
V.RAVEENDRAN, J. Notice to respondents was issued limited to the question whether the High Court ought to have decreed the appellants suit for declaration and companysequential injunction at least in respect of the portion of the suit property which was allotted to the share of second respondent in the earlier partition suit filed by the first respondent.
