KOMALA VALLI Vs. KUNJU PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit was to set aside a court sale and other execution proceedings and to recover possession of the plaint property with mesne profits. The plaintiffs impugned the court sale as null and void on account of absence of jurisdiction for the court that conducted the sale. The first court decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court reversed the decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit.

(2.) It is admitted now that the plaint property was the acquisition in the name of one Andi Ramanathan the grandfather of the plaintiffs. After the death of Ramanathan for the balance of consideration due under the sale deed in his favour the vendors of the property brought a suit in O. S. 156 of 1109 of the Karunagappalli Munsiff's Court impleading Ramanathan's children, Ramanathan Andi and Ramanathan Sankaran as parties. The parties compromised the suit and a decree followed in terms of the compromise. The present 1st defendant was the 5th plaintiff in the suit. It appears he obtained an assignment in his favour of the interests of the other plaintiffs in the decree. He put the decree in execution and the property was proclaimed for sale. The sale was posted to 24-6-1118. In the meantime 1st defendant in that case Ramanathan Andi died. On 24-6-1118 the date to which the court sale was posted the decree holder filed an application that the 2nd defendant in the case was the legal representative of the deceased 1st defendant and that he should be recorded as the legal representative. The plaint property was put in auction on that date and was purchased by the decree holder the present 1st defendant. The plaintiffs in this case who are the children of Ramanathan Andi filed an application to have the sale set aside. The execution Court rejected that application and put the auction purchaser in possession of the property purchased by him. The plaintiffs thereafter have brought the present suit for setting aside the court sale.

(3.) It is contended that the legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant in O. S. 156 of 1109 are his children the plaintiffs in this case, that on the death of the 1st defendant they ought to have been impleaded as his legal representatives and notice issued to them under O.21, R.22 C. P. C. and that the sale conducted after the death of the 1st defendant in O. S. 156 of 1109 without notice under O.21, R.22 C. P. C. was without jurisdiction and therefore void. I do not think that the contention can prevail. The parties are admittedly governed by Hindu Law.