SANKARAN NAIR Vs. PARAMESWARAN NAMPOODIRIPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 6th defendant in O. S.474 of 1954 on the file of the Munsiff, Alathur is the appellant in S. A. 463 of 1966. THE plaintiff in that suit is the petitioner in CRP. 90 of 1968. He is also the plaintiff in another suit, O. S.391 of 1951, on the file of the same court. CRP. 83 of 1968 is a revision petition filed by him from an order passed in O. S.391 of 1951. THE Second Appeal is from an order passed by the Munsiff adjourning the case for confirmation of the sale which was held in execution. THE Revision Petitions relate to orders passed by him in the 2 suits amending the decrees in those cases.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal and the revision petitions are as follows: THE plaint schedule properties in the 2 suits are identical and they belong to the plaintiff. On the date of the 2 suits they were outstanding on lease with the sub-tarwad of defendants 2 to 5 and 7. Defendants 3 to 5 and 7 are the children of the 2nd and 6th defendants, the 6th defendant being the husband of the 2nd defendant. During the pendency of the suits the 2nd defendant died. THE 2 suits are for recovery of rent due in respect of the plaint properties for different periods. While O. S.391 of 1951 is for recovery of rent for the year 1126 M. E., O. S.474 of 1954 is for recovery of rent for the years 1129 and 1130 M. E. THE 6th defendant was impleaded in the suits on the allegation that he was in possession of the properties on behalf of his wife and children. He contended that he was in possession of the properties as a sub lessee of the 2nd defendant. That contention was found against and a decree was passed in O. S.391 of 1951 directing the defendants to pay on or before 15 2 1963 from and out of the sub-tarwad properties of defendants 3 to 5 and 7 an amount of Rs. 347-81 to the plaintiff. In O. S.474 of 1954 a decree for the arrears of rent claimed in that suit was passed against all the defendants in the suit.

(3.) THE Second Appeal can first be dealt with. THE order appealed against is the one passed on 22-10-1965 and it reads as follows: ''Property sold to decree holder for Rs. 1,001. For confirmation adjourned to 20-11-1965." Neither the order whereby the court ordered sale of the property nor the sale conducted on 20- 10-1965 was challenged by the 6th defendant. His application for stay of execution was dismissed. As the decree then stood he was also liable for the decree amount. On the date of the sale nothing prevented the court from conducting the sale. After the sale was conducted the case had to be adjourned for confirmation of the sale and that was what was done by the order appealed against. THEre is no merit in the Second Appeal. It has only to be dismissed.