PADANATHIL RUQMINI AMMA Vs. P K ABDULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The property in dispute originally belonged to one Padanattil Chengottu Kunnath Tarwad. One Mohammed Haji filed a suit being suit No. 397 of 1941 for recovery of possession of some properties held by this Tarwad on tenancy rights. On 12th September, 1942 an ex parte decree was passed in the suit in favour of Mohammed Haji for recovery of possession of the leasehold property and also for arrears of rent. The ex parte decree was executed. A number of items of properties belonging to the Tarwad including the suit properties were attached and sold in Court auction held on 18-3-45 in execution proceedings. The suit property herein (one acre and ten cents of agricultural land) was purchased by the decree-holder Mohammed Haji in the Court auction. The delivery of the suit property was given to the decree-holder auction purchaser on 12-3-1946 as per order on E. A. 389 of 1946.

(2.) After purchase the suit property was given on lease by Mohammed Haji to one Raghavan Nair on 2-5-46. Raghavan Nair in turn sold his rights in the suit property to one Ayyappan who in turn sold his rights to one Raman Menon. Raman Menon sold his rights in the said property on 3-10-1950 in favour of the respondent, P. K. Abdulla.

(3.) One of the members of the Tarwad challenged the ex parte decree in OS No. 397 of 1941 by filing an application under order IX, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court declined to set aside the ex parte decree. The order of the trial Court was reversed by the appellate Court. Ultimately the High Court by its judgment and order dated 29-1-1958 set aside the ex parte decree.