VENKATARAMANA UDUPA Vs. KANNAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the plaintiff who sued for redemption of a possessory mortgage executed by his father in favour of the defendant. The defence was that the equity of redemption having been sold in execution of the decree in C. S. No. 32 of 1934 instituted against the plaintiff's father on the file of the Adoor Panchayat Court, the plaintiff had no title to redeem. Ext. B-5 is the sale certificate in that case, and Ext. B-6 a release or transfer of the rights thereunder by the auction purchaser to the present defendant. In replication, the plaintiff asserted that the decree in C. 3. No. 32 of 1934 was void as the Panchayat Court had no jurisdiction to try that suit the claim wherein was above Rs. 200/- or to pass a decree against him who was then a minor on record as the sole legal representative of the defendant, The Munsif found the decree in C. S, No. 32 of 1934 to be "beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Panchayat Court and therefore totally void" and the court sale "vitiated by fraud and collusion" and passed a preliminary decree for redemption; but the Subordinate Judge, on appeal, held that "the plaintiff's rights in the property have been lost by the court sale which was valid and binding on the plaintiff" and dismissed the suit. Hence this second appeal.

(2.) From the facts narrated above it is clear that the real question in the case is the validity of the decree and court sale had in C. S. No. 32 of 1934 on the file of the Adoor Panchayat Court, if the decree and sale are valid the plaintiff has no right to redeem the suit mortgage. If on the other hand, the decree and sale are void the plaintiff's title to the equity of redemption cannot be affected by them.

(3.) Counsel are agreed that the powers of the Adoor Panchayat Court are governed by the Madras Village Courts Act, 1888 (Act I of 1889), S.13 and 14 of which relate to jurisdiction.