KRISHNAMOORTHI PILLAI Vs. LEKSHMI RAJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st defendant - judgment debtor in O. S. No. 532 of 1958 is the revision petitioner. The only point raised is limitation, and the decree holder's answer is that the plea is barred by constructive res judicata. A number of decisions have been cited, taking apparently different views depending upon the facts of each, and the facts are therefore important.

(2.) The decree for redemption was passed on 11-1-62. E. P. No. 1101 of 1974 from which this revision arises was filed on 10-12-74. It was filed by the respondent herein. She was not a party to the decree, but it was claimed that she was entitled to the equity of redemption. On 21-12-74 the court ordered notice on the E. P. to plaintiffs (1) and (2) and to the defendants. The first defendant was served on or before 20-2-75. Some others were still to be served and the matter was being adjourned from time to time to complete service. That was apparently completed before 29-3-76 and on that day the respondent herein was impleaded as additional third plaintiff. The legal representatives of defendants 3, 6 and 7 were a/so impleaded, and the matter was adjourned to 17-6-1976 for further steps. On 17-6-76 deposit of mortgage money and value of improvements was ordered. A major portion of the amount was deposited, and on 26-8-76 deposit of the balance was ordered. On the same day the 16th defendant filed objections to the E. P. The balance amount was subsequently deposited and the E. P. was posted to 29-9-76 for bearing. The 16th defendant's claim was one of kudikidappu and therefore reference to the Land Tribunal (under S.125 of Act 1/64) was ordered on 29-9-76. By 3-1-77, the finding of the Tribunal was available and the E. P. was then posted to 5-2-77 for evidence and hearing. The 1st defendant entered appearance through counsel on that day and applied for time. On 14-2-77 he filed objections; and on 31-3-77 the court passed an order upholding his tenancy claim under S.4A of Act 1/64. The E. P. was adjourned to 23-6-77 for further steps.

(3.) On the passing of the order dated 31-3-77 the respondent herein filed E. A. 1463/77 for reviewing that order, and that was allowed on 27-3-78 holding that the 1st defendant was not entitled to the benefit of S.4A of the Land Reforms Act. It appears that the 1st defendant had raised a contention that the respondent herein was not "competent" to execute the decree. The court overruled the objection in the following terms: