SIVANANDAM Vs. RAMABADRA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises under the following circumstances: On the 12th September, 1935 one Ramabadra Reddiar obtained a decree against Govindaraju Nadar (D -1) Doraiswami Nadar (D -2) and minor Vasudeva Nadar (D -3) whereby defendants 1 and 2 were directed to pay personally, and all the defendants to pay, out of the family properties, a sum of Rs. 2,856 with interest on Rs. 2,100 at 12% per annum from 16th April, 1934 from the date of the plaint upto the date of the decree. The decree further ordered the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 425 as costs to the plaintiff with interest 0.1 the aggregate sum at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree upto the date of realisation. Subsequently Ramabadra Reddiar transferred part of the decree in favour of ore Annamalai Mudaliar. Sivanandam who is one of the sons of Govindaraju Nadar (D -1) and who was not a party to the suit in O. S. No. 515 of 1934, filed in March, 1961 a petition under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938 in LA. No. 599 of 1961 for scaling down the debt due by his father under the decree. Ramabadra Reddiar was impleaded as the first respondent and Annamalai Mudaliar as the second respondent in the interlocutory application. It appears that in I. P. No. 11 of 1935 Govindaraju Nadar and Doraiswami Nadar, defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 515 of 1934 were adjudged as insolvents. Consequently, the Official Receiver, North Arcot, was impleaded as the third respondent in the interlocutory application. In this application, Sivanandam, the appellant before me, contended that as a member of the agricultural family of Ramabadra Reddiar he was entitled to file this application for scaling down and that no amount would be due under the decree if it were properly scaled down. Ramabadra Reddiar in his counter contended inter alia that the petitioner was not competent to apply for scaling down at all, that he was not an Agriculturist entitled to apply and that he had no saleable interest in the land, inasmuch as the entire family property had vested in the Official Receiver in insolvency. He further pointed out in his counter that section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act had no application and that inasmuch as Govindaraju Nadar and his brother had been adjudged as insolvents in I. P. No. 11 of 1935 on the file of the Sub -Court, Vellore, the proper provision applicable would be Section 21 of the Act and that this application ought to be made either by the insolvent -debtor or the Official Receiver. The second respondent, who was the assignee -decree holder, raised a number of contentions, some of which were a repetition of those raised by the first respondent. The Official Receiver, who was the third respondent in the interlocutory application, filed a memo, to the effect that he had no counter to file.

(2.) THE learned District Munsif, Ranipet, after recording documentary and oral evidence and upon a review of the evidence, came to the conclusion that Govindaraju Nadar's family including his son, the petitioner, was in possession of agricultural lands on the three relevant dates, viz...:

(3.) I , therefore, reverse the finding of the District Judge and remand the matter to the first appellate Court with a direction to dispose of the appeal on the merits on the basis that the petitioner in I. A. No. 599 of 1961 is competent as an interested person to maintain that petition. The costs of this appeal will abide the result of C. M. A. No. 10 of 1971.