PARUKUTIY Vs. APPUKUTTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal arises out of an application under S.13B of the Land Reforms Act (Act I of 1964), hereinafter called the Act for brief. The material facts relevant for the appeal are the following.

(2.) In execution of a decree for arrears of rent, the appellants' predecessor who was the landlord decree holder brought the leasehold to sale and purchased ii on May 17, 1965. The sale was duly confirmed on June 26, 1965 and on October 1, 1965 the decree holder obtained delivery of possession of the properties. The decree holder is dead and the appellants who are two of the legal representatives are in possession of the properties. On May 29, 1970 the first respondent who was the first judgment debtor made an application, E. A. No. 257 of 1970 under S.13B, followed by the deposit of the required amount on June 3, 1970. The appellants opposed the application on the ground, inter alia, that the first respondent was not competent to maintain the application by himself as the other members of his tarwad were also judgment debtors under the decree and that possession was taken from them as well. The first respondent thereupon filed E. A No. 88 of 1971 on 24-2-1971 for amending E. A. No. 257 of 1970 to describe himself as karnavan and manager of his tavazhi and to seek restoration of possession for the tavazhi. By order dated 16-6-1971, the court allowed the amendment. By a subsequent order on E. A. No. 426 of 1971 filed by him, the court allowed the other judgment debtors to be brought on record as petitioners 2 to 14 in E. A. No. 257 of 1970. They are respondents 2 to 14 in this appeal.

(3.) The learned Munsiff dismissed E. A. No. 257 of 1970 in the view that there was no valid application made on or before June 30, 1970 as E.A. No. 257 although filed on May 29, 1970 was by the first respondent alone and the amendments describing him as karnavan and bringing on record the other judgment debtors were subsequent to June 30, 1970 and could not give retrospective validity to the application The Munsiff also held that S.104 of the Act which deals with "Proceedings by or against joint families etc" would be of no avail to the respondents. On appeal by the respondents the appellate court took a contrary view and allowed the application, finding that it was duly filed within time and did not contravene S.104.