BEEVI AMMA Vs. DEVASSIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners prayed that the court sale of four items of property in pursuance of the decree in O. S. No. 81 of 1109 of the District Court of Kottayam should be set aside. The prayer was rejected. The prayer was based on sub -section (1) of Section 22 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958. That sub -section (omitting the provisions) reads as follows:

(2.) THE sale of the four items of property was in one lot, and prior to 1st November 1956. It is also clear that the possession of only three of the items actually passed before the 20th November 1957 to the purchaser, and that the possession of the remaining item is still with the petitioners. The question for consideration is whether the sale in such a case can be set aside under sub -section (1) of Section 22.

(3.) IT is common ground that if the sale has to be set aside, it has to be set aside in its entirety, and that it is not possible to set aside only in so far as it affects the item of property still in the possession of the petitioners. The question, therefore, is whether, when four items of property were sold in one lot, we can say that the possession of "the said property" has not actually passed if one of the items included in the sale has not been delivered to the purchaser. We think we can. "The said property" must mean the entire property sold, and when the possession of the whole of that property has not passed, but only of a portion thereof, the possession of the "said property" should be considered as not having passed from the judgment -debtor to the purchaser.