LAKSHMANAN PILLAI Vs. SUBHASHINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff who succeeded before the trial court but lost before the lower appellate court and the second appellate Court is the appellant before us; and the appeal is by leave from the second appellate Judge. And the question we have to consider in the appeal lies within quite a narrow compass.

(2.) THE appellant is the decree -holder auction-purchaser; and he obtained a sale certificate in his favour. He made one attempt on the execution side to get recovery of possession of the property in pursuance of the sale certificate and failed. THEreafter, he filed the suit which has given rise to the present appeal. As we have already stated, the trial court decreed the suit, while the lower appellate court and the second appellate Judge dismissed the same.

(3.) SECTION 47 is in the statute book for a purpose, viz , to prevent multiplicity of suits, and the way the section has been interpreted by the Madras High Court, the Travancore-Cochin High Court and the other High Courts which take the same view, is only in conformity with that intention, If the other view, the view of the Patna High Court, that the execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree come to an end by the issue of a sale certificate is accepted, the purpose of this section will be lost to a considerable extent. Moreover, the view of the Madras High Court has been there for over eighty years, because Patanjali Sastri J. has stated in Thondam Aanamalai Mudali v. Tiruttani Ramasami Mudali (AIR. 1941 Mad. 161) that that view had already been accepted for over 50 years. That was in 1941; and another 30 years have passed since then. To upset this procedural law at this stage will create more injustice than justice. And this is therefore an eminently fit case for applying the principle of stare decisis.