AIYAPPAN SANKU Vs. RAGHAVA KAIMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question in this second appeal by the judgment-debtor is whether the order of the lower court refusing to stay execution under Act I of 1)57 in reversal of the order of the executing court to contrary effect, is any way wrong.

(2.) THE property was originally outstanding with the defendant under a venpattom of 1103 from the plaintiff's family. On the allotment of the property to plaintiff in family partition he got the defendant to accept Ext. P-3 pattu panayam in 1115 for a sum of R s. 98, adjusting the improvements under this lease to certain extent. Ext. P-3 carried a term of 12 years. Even before the term was over, the plaintiff executed a puravaippa in 1123 borrowing thereunder a further sum of Rs. 98. Under Ext. P-3 the defendant was to pay the plaintiff a patta michavaram of Re. 1 and some perquisites by way of Onakalcha etc. This liability of the defendant ceased with the execution of Ext. P-2. It should be noticed also that Ext. P-3 provides for a personal liability of the plaintiff for the consideration thereunder and Ext. P-2 provides for the payment of this amount thereunder also at time of redemption by the plaintiff after term. And further Ext. P-2 chose to describe the prior transaction under Ext. P-3 rather deliberately as an otti.

(3.) I therefore hold along with the court below that this case is not covered by the Act I of 1957. The second appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order for costs however.