KARTHYAYANI AMMA Vs. VARKEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge in appeal, dismissing the appellants application under S.22 of Act 31 of 1958, in reversal of the order of the Munsiff. Under S.22(1)(a) of the Act, the appellant was bound to deposit one half of the purchase money, in addition to the costs of execution. The purchase money being Rs. 605.25 p., the appellant was bound to deposit Rs. 302.63 p., but the deposit as made by her was short by 12 p. The appellants prayer to set aside the sale was granted by the Munsiff, relying on the maxim, de minimis non curat lex; afterwards the appellant made good the deposit by paying 12 p. more as permitted. The Judge, however felt constrained by the weight of certain decided cases referred to by him, to negative the application of the maxim. The question for consideration in second appeal is whether this view of the Judge is right or not.

(2.) This second appeal being not maintainable, the appellant moved C. M. P. 8116 of 1964 for converting it into a revision petition; allowing the petition, I treat this second appeal as a civil revision petition.

(3.) The following is an extract from the exposition of the maxim by Herbert Broom, in his work on A Selection of Legal Maxims, 10th edition, pages 89 and 90:-