MERLA VEERAMMA, ZAMINDARINI VELANGI, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL POWER-OF-ATTORNEY HOLDER, N. RAMAYYA AND ORS. Vs. VILLURY RAMANNA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been placed before a Bench for hearing as two judgments of this Court which have bearing on the question of law involved are in conflict. The first was delivered by Venkataramana Rao, J., in Subbarayulu v. : AIR1936Mad465 and the second by Wadsworth, J., in Appanna Sastri v. : AIR1942Mad84 .

(2.) BEFORE turning to the law we will state the facts. On the 30th October, 1937, in S.S. No. 82 of 1937 filed in the Court of the Deputy Collector, Kowur, under the provisions of Section 77 of the Madras. Estates Land Act the first defendant obtained a rent decree against a pattadar. By three sale deeds dated the 18th August, 1937, 7th September, 1937 and 29th March, 1938, respectively, the plaintiffs purchased portions of the land covered by the patta. Notice of the sales "was duly given to the landholder under Section 145(2) of the Act. On the 7th February, 1939, the first defendant applied for execution of the decree but he gave no notice of the application to the plaintiffs. The lands purchased by the plaintiffs from the original pattadar were attached and on the 28th August, 1939, were sold in public auction. The purchaser was the second defendant. The plaintiffs then filed in the Court of the District Munsiff of Kovvur the suit which has given rise to this appeal. They pleaded that the second defendant had bought the lands as their benamidar and that the sale was invalid for want of notice to1 them of the execution proceedings. The defendants averred that the second defendant was their benamidar, that notice to the plaintiffs was not necessary inasmuch as they had knowledge of the execution proceedings and that they were estopped from questioning the validity of the sale as the first plaintiff was present at the auction.

(3.) SUB -section (i) of Section 145 of the Madras Estates Land Act states that whenever a holding or a portion of it is transferred or whenever it devolves by operation of law, the landholder shall, subject to the provisions of the section, be bound to recognise the transfer or devolution and enter into a fresh engagement. Subsection (2) says that where a holding or a portion is transferred by the act of a ryot, the landholder on receiving notice in writing from the transferor and the transferee shall recognise the transfer. As we have already indicated that notice was given before the execution proceedings were instituted.