J VELUMANI Vs. CHENNA BASAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a claim petition for removal of obstruction filed by the decreeholders in E.A. No. 705 of 1981 in E.P. No. 780 of 1973 in O.S. No. 795 of 1963 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem.

(2.) THE facts in brief are as follows: THE property belonged to one Govindasamy and his son Chandrasekaran. It was mortgaged by Govindasamy to one Gurusamy for Rs. 4,000/-On 10.1.1945. THE mortgagor was adjudged as an insolvent in I.P. No. 5 of 1945 and the Official Receiver attempted to sell the equity of redemption to one Kandasamy, who was the brother of the mortgagor. But, the sale was not concluded. THE mortgagee filed O.S. No. 227 of 1949 to enforce the mortgage against the mortgagor, his brother, who has purported to purchase from the Official Receiver the equity of redemption and the minor son of the mortgagor, Chandrasekaran. It was held by the Court that the mortgage was not binding on the minor's half share. A preliminary decree was passed on 5-9-1950 as against the mortgagor's half share of the property. Final decree was passed on 29.6.1951. THE decree was executed and the decreeholder himself purchased the property on 25.6.1953.

(3.) TWO contentions are raised by learned counsel for the appellant. First is that under S. 88 of the District Municipalities Act, the liability to pay tax shall be fastened not only on the transferor, but also on the transferee. According to learned counsel, the section has cast a duty on the transferor and the transferee to inform the Municipality about the transfer and get mutation of the registry. If they fail to do so, it is open to the Municipality, according to learned counsel, to enforce the charge against the property and bring the property to sale. According to him, in the event of such sale, it will be binding not only on the transferor, but also on the transferee, who failed to inform the Municipality about the change in ownership. Applying the said proposition to the facts of the case, learned counsel submits that in the present case, Govindasamy was the owner, who failed to pay the taxes and on Gurusamy acquiring ownership of one half share in the property, the latter was bound to inform the Municipality of the change in ownership and enter his name in the register. It is argued that when the Municipality filed the suit in O.S. No. 383 of 1954, they are not aware of the sale of half share in favour of the mortgagee/decreeholder. Therefore, the suit was maintainable as against the prior owner Govindasamy. It is also argued that the proceedings, which ended in a decree in the suit and the Court auction sale in execution of the decree were valid and binding not only against Govindasamy, but also against the mortgagee/decreeholder/auction purchaser.