SUBRAMANIAN CHETTIAR Vs. KRISHNAVENI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition Mr. Balakrishna Eradi, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the order of the learned subordinate Judge of Kozhikode, passed in E. A. No. 554/62 in E. P. No. 123/62, which again was in O. S. No. 51960.

(2.) THE application itself was to enlarge the time, or to excuse the delay, in making a certain deposit in accordance with the directions contained in the decree passed by the court.

(3.) THE decree of the trial court was as follows: 1. That on plaintiff depositing into court the sum of Rs. 5500/-being the balance consideration within two months from this date, the 1st defendant do execute the sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule properties within one month from the date of the deposit of Rs. 5500/- in court. 2. On that on execution of the sale deed the defendants do deliver and put the plaintiff in possession of the plaint schedule properties except the house therein. 3. That the plaintiff be at liberty to take appropriate proceedings for getting possession of the house in the plaint schedule properties. 4. That the defendants do pay to the plaintiff the sum of rs. 1599-50 being his costs in this suit. From the material parts of the decree incorporated above, it will be seen that the plaintiff had to deposit into court a sum of Rs. 5500/-being the balance consideration, within two months from 5th September, 1961, and the 1st defendant was to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit properties within one month from the date of the deposit of Rs. 5500/-in court by the plaintiff. THEre is also provision to the effect that on the execution of the sale deed, the defendants were to deliver possession of the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff excepting the house therein; and so far as the house is concerned, the plaintiff was given liberty to take other appropriate proceedings for getting possession of the same. THE decree also provides for payment of the costs of the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 1599. 50. It must also be noted that the liability for costs was imposed by the decree as against all the defendants jointly and severally, and therefore there was no individual decree in respect of any of the matters as against any of the defendants therein.