KUMARASAMI CHETTI Vs. T R SUBRAMANIA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. He sued for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1099-10-0. Though decreed in the trial Court, the suit was dismissed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam. The suit was instituted in the following circumstances:

(2.) THE respondent herein, a land-holder, obtained a decree against one of his tenants one Balasubramania Padayachi, for arrears of rent in S. S. No. 28 of 1937 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam, and, in execution thereof, brought the tenant's holding to sale. The property was purchased by the appellant on 5-7-1943. Within 30 days of the sale, the judgment-debtor instituted proceedings under Section 131, Madras Estates Land Act for setting aside the sale. This application was opposed by the appellant, who was the auction-purchaser, mainly on two grounds. The first was that the applicant did not comply with the requirements of Section 131, Madras Estates Land Act and the second was that the applicant had no subsisting interest in the property to enable him to maintain the application, the property having been purchased by third parties in execution of a money decree against him long before and the transfer having been recognised by the land-holder. These objections prevailed with the Sub-Collector, Kumbakonsm, who heard the application with the result that the petition was dismissed. Thereupon the appellant obtained the usual sale certificate and also possession of the property through Court on 2-9-1943. Subsequently, the appellant attached the surplus sale proceeds in execution of a decree, which he obtained against the above mentioned Balasubramania Padayachi. When a claim was preferred by the widow of the purchaser in execution of the money decree to the surplus sale proceeds on the ground that the property in. dispute belonged to her husband by virtue of the earlier sale, the appellant objected to the same and contended that the sale proceeds belonged to his judgment-debtor. The executing Court agreed with his objection and dismissed the claim petition with the consequence that he could proceed against the surplus sale proceeds in execution of his decree. Sometime thereafter, one Venkatarama Aiyar, who acquired interest in the suit properties by a series of transactions filed a suit O. S. No. 237 of 1944, alleging that the property in question was purchased by his predecessor-in-interest in execution of a money decree and the transfer having been recognised by the landholder the judgment-debtor Balasubramania Padayachi had no subsisting interest in the property and therefore the subsequent sale had no effect at all and would not, in any way, prejudice the purchase of these properties by his predecessor-in-interest.

(3.) IN spite of the opposition by the present appellant, the suit was decreed and, in execution of the decree, he was dispossessed. It may be mentioned here that one of the grounds of the judgment in Venkatarama Aiyar's suit was the statement of the appellant that, on the date when the property was brought to sale inexecution of the decree in S. S. No. 28 of 1937, the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest in the property, the title therein having long before passed to the purchaser of the same earlier in execution of another decree and the transfer having been recognised by the landholder.