LAWS(MAD)-1976-12-34

VENKATASWAMI REDDIAR Vs. THIRUKAMU REDDIAR AND ORS.

Decided On December 08, 1976
VENKATASWAMI REDDIAR Appellant
V/S
Thirukamu Reddiar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for reviewing the order passed by me on 26th February, 1975 in A.A.A.O. No. 70 of 1974.

(2.) THE question which arose for determination in that appeal was whether Section 23 -C of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists' Relief Act (VIII of 1973) is applicable to a case in which the property is sold after the coming into force of the Act. The learned District Munsif held that the judgment debtor was entitled to invoke the aid of Section 23 -C of the aforesaid Act, since the application invoking Section 23 -C was filed within 90 days from the date on which the sale was confirmed. The sale was held on 19th February, 1973, and it was confirmed on 23rd March, 1973. The learned Subordinate Judge on appeal held that Section 23 -C of the Act would be applicable only if the sale had been held before the Act came into force. I was of the view that Section 23 -C would apply even in cases where the sales had taken place after the commencement of the Act. Subsequent to my order, a Full Bench of this Court in Dharmarajan v. Nagalinga Kandiyar : (1975) 2 MLJ 34 has held that Section 23 -C of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act cannot be invoked when the sale had taken place after the commencement of the Act. In view of that decision, a review of the order passed "by me has been asked for.

(3.) IN Gannabathula Venkamma v. Gannabathuda Ranga Rao : AIR 1922 Mad 227 it has been held that the ground for review under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C, must be something which existed at the date of the decree and the rule does not authorise the review of a decree which was right when it was made on the ground of the happening of some subsequent event. In that case the lower Court had decided a case following the decision of the High Court in a connected case. Subsequently however, the decision of the High Court in the connected case was reversed on appeal to the Privy Council. It was held that the reversal of the High Court's judgment is not a ground for a review of the lower Court's judgment.