SIVATHANU PILLAI Vs. LAKSHMI RAJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sivathanu Pillai Krishnamoorthy Pillai, residing with Vakil Sivathanu Pillai of Nagercoil, is the revision petitioner; and he seems to be very tenacious.

(2.) He was the first defendant in O. S.531/58, a suit for redemption, decreed on 11-1-1962. It appears that when execution was taken out in E. P. 286/63, value of improvements was claimed. Assessment of the claim took time and the E. P. was dismissed for default on 25-3-1969. The respondent herein later filed E. P. 1109/74. She was not a party to the decree. Notice on the E. P, was served on the first defendant on 20-2-1975, The other parties were served later, and on 20-3-1976 the Court impleaded the respondent as additional 3rd plaintiff. On 17-6-1976 deposit of mortgage money and value of improvements was ordered, and the deposit was duly made. The 16th defendant claimed "kudikidappu" and that claim was referred to the Land Tribunal under S.125 of Act 1/64. The tribunal's findings became available by 3-1-1977 and the E. P. was then posted for evidence and hearing to 5-2-1977. The first defendant then applied for time; and on 14-2-1977 (i.e. about two years after service of notice) he filed objections claiming that he was a tenant under S.4A of Act 1/64. By order dated 31-3-1977, the Court upheld his tenancy claim. But the respondent applied for review, and by another order dated 27-3-1978 the Court held that the petitioner 1st defendant was entitled to the benefit of S.4A. He appealed, and the District Court remanded the matter. After remand, the executing Court heard the matter again and passed an order on 7-8-1980 rejecting the claim based on S.4A.

(3.) The petitioner then came to this Court, in C. R. P. No. 2017/80, challenging the order dated 7-8-1980. Though a ground was taken against the finding regarding S.4A, that was not argued or pressed. The only point urged was that the E. P. of 1974 was time barred. I dealt with this contention and held that the petitioner was precluded from raising it by reason of constructive res judicata. The C. R. P. was accordingly dismissed on 5-3-1981.