RAMATHAL AND ANR. Vs. NAGARATHINAMMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE connected appeals are directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in Execution Application Nos. 80 and 525 of 1963 in Original Suit No. 37 of 1955. The prior facts necessary for the consideration of these appeals are briefly the following:

(2.) DURING the pendency of the aforesaid two appeals in the High Court, the auction -purchaser conveyed the property to one Ramathal on 19th November 1958, and she is now the Appellant in Appeal Against Order Nos. 370 of 1963 and 207 of 1964 before us. After the restoration of the petition under Order XXI, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure, Chandrasekharan,Nagarathinam -mal and Ramswami Goundar filed, on 27th November 1962, an application under Order XXXIV, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, Execution Application No. 80 of 1963, for leave to deposit the mortgage money and the other statutory charges and solatium to the auction -purchaser, and prayed for treating the mortgage security as discharged, and for getting back possession of the property both from the auction -purchaser as well as the purchaser from him. Simultaneously, they filed Execution Application No. 525 of 1963, under Sections 47 and 151, Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the confirmation of the sale, in view of the orders passed in Appeal Against Order No. 105 of 1959 and Appeal Against Order No. 106 of 1959. These applications were strenuously opposed by the decree -holder, the auction -purchaser in the Court auction sale, and the private purchaser from the auction -purchaser.

(3.) THE principal points that arise for consideration in these appeals are (i) whether, by reason of the confirmation of the sale in Court -auction, the auction -purchaser got a valid title to the schedule property, and whether that title became void by the subsequent orders in Appeal Against Order Nos. 105 and 106 of 1959 and the consequent restoration of the application under Order XXI, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure, (ii) whether, Ramathal, the Appellant in Appeal Against Order Nos. 370 of 1963 and 207 of 1964, is a bona fide purchaser for value from the Court auction -purchaser, and whether her title can be defeated by the aforesaid proceedings; in any event, is she entitled to equities in her favour, by reason of improvements to the property which she made in good faith; and (iii) does the amount deposited by the mortgagors and Ramaswami Goundar represent the correct amount payable under the provisions of Order XXXIV, Rule 5,Code of Civil Procedure, and, if not, are they entitled to have the auction sale set aside and the mortgage security discharged?