KANNAN Vs. KRISHNAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises out of an application to cancel the confirmation of a court sale held on 25-1-1954 in O.S. No. 590 of 1950 on the file of the District Munsiff of Hosdrug. The sale took place pursuant to a final decree passed in a suit for arrears of rent wherein a charge was claimed on the leasehold interest. When the judgment debtors the appellants herein, committed default in paying the debt within the time specified by the preliminary decree, the decree holder (Respondent 1) applied for and obtained a final decree directing the sale of the leasehold interest. Subsequently he took out execution seeking to sell that interest and at the sale held on 25-1-1954, respondent 2 to this appeal, a stranger, purchased it. The court confirmed the sale on 1-3-1954 and the application giving rise to the appeal was filed on 2-4-1954. The ground on which cancellation of the confirmation was sought was that it was done in contravention of the provisions of the Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act. 1951 (Act V of 1954) which came into force on 6-2-1954. The sale took place before the Act was enacted, but the confirmation was subsequent to the Act. Likewise the full amount of the purchase-money was made good only after the Act, namely on 8 -2-1954. The two lower courts, namely the Court of the District Munsiff of Hosdrug and the Court of the District Judge of South Kanara, negatived the claim of the judgment debtor to have the confirmation of the sale cancelled. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal was therefore filed before the High Court of Madras and consequent on the reorganisation of the States the appeal was transferred to the file of this court.

(2.) The appeal first came up for hearing before Kumara Pillai, J. who referred it for decision by a Division Bench as it raised questions of law which were uncovered by any decision of this Court. What we have to decide here is whether the lower courts went wrong in refusing; to cancel the confirmation. Admittedly the two appellants are agriculturists within the meaning of Madras Act V of 1954. Before the lower courts it was however, contended on behalf of the auction purchaser that S.4 of the Act relating to Stay of Proceedings contained no inhibition against the confirmation of a court sale which had taken place before the Act came into force. That contention found favour with the District Munsiff as also with the District Judge. The appellants learned counsel challenged the correctness of that view while on behalf of the auction purchaser it was strenuously contended that the view was right. A further argument was raised on behalf of the purchaser that S.4 had no application to the case inasmuch as the decree pursuant to which the sale was held was not a decree for payment of money passed in a suit for the recovery of a debt, as required therein.

(3.) For a proper appreciation of the two questions mentioned above it is necessary to look into the relevant provisions of the Act. S.2 clause (b) defines a debt and that definition is in these terms:-