MARAPPA GOUNDAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision sought to be preferred against the order made by the learned district Munsif of Coimbatore in E. A No 1247 of 1956 in E. P. No. 77 of 1956 in O. S. No. 793 of 1952.

(2.) THE decree-holder Marakkal (first respondent in the lower Court) obtained a decree against the petitioner Marappa Counter. In pursuance of that decree the decree-holder took out execution proceedings and brought the properties of the petitioner to sale subject to a mortgage, The sale was held on 9-7-1956 and the successful auction purchaser is Rangaswami Goundcr (second respondent in the lower Court ). Then the petitioner filed an application to set aside the sale beyond 30 days accompanied by an application to excuse delay under Section 18 of the Limitation act. In order to attract the provisions of Section 18, the petitioner contended that there was a Panchayat at the instance of some mediators between himself, the decree-holder and the mortgagee. Valliakkal and others. In that Panchayat it is stated that it was agreed that Sellappa Gounder, the Sammandhi of the petitioner should purchase the properties for Rs. 10,000/ -. Sellappa Gounder wanted three months' time to enable him to get the necessary funds for the purchase. The first respondent decree-holder is stated to have agreed to receive the amount out of Court three months later after the sale to sellappa Gounder. The decree-holder is said to have agreed to this course because she would get the entire decree amount without waiting till 1958 July for recovery of the amount as per Act I of 1955. The mortgagee Valliakkal it is further stated agreed that her mortgage may be subjected in the sale deed. On account of this arrangement it is finally stated that the decree-holder agreed to receive the amount in the village itself and she promised that she wilt not proceed with the sale of the properties and the petitioner need not go to Coimbatore in connection with the sale and that therefore acting upon this representation the petitioner kept quiet and subsequently learnt that the mortgagee Vollikkal's son, the second respondent, had purchased the property in Court auction. Therefore, the petitioner came to court with an application after excusing delay to set aside the sale.

(3.) THE two points which arose for consideration before the lower court were whether the Panchayat set up by the petitioner is at all true; and secondly, whether the petitioner can rely upon the said Panchayat to attract the provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner was aware that 9-7-1956 had been fixed as the date of sale.