SWARNAMBAL Vs. ABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this appeal is whether the 1st respondent who is the assignee of a tenant is entitled to the right of restoration of the holding conferred by S.5 and 6 of Kerala Act 9 of 1967. The Trial Court (on the execution side) held that he was not. The lower appellate court on appeal, and a learned single Judge of this Court in second Appeal, held that he was. The question has been reagitated before us in this further appeal preferred with the leave of the learned Judge.

(2.) The Suit O. S. No. 211 of 1953 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Palghat, was for recovery of arrears of pattam by sale of the rights of the original tenant. A decree for sale followed, and, in execution, the tenancy rights were purchased in court auction by the 2nd respondent under Ext. B1 dated 5-11-1966. The properties were delivered to the purchaser under Ext. B4 dated 28-11-1966. By successive devolutions the 2nd respondent's rights have become vested in the appellants in this appeal. The 1st respondent took an assignment of the rights of the original tenant under Ext. A1 dated 19-5 -1966 and applied to set aside the sale under S.6 of Act 9 of 1967. The application was filed before the passing of Act 35 of 1969. It was this application that gave rise to the orders noted supra.

(3.) S.5 and 6 of Act 9 of 1967 read as follows.