ERRACHI REDDIER Vs. VELLAYA REDDIER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs, who have failed in both the Courts below are the appellants in this second appeal. The claim relates to the plaintiffs title and right to the possession of the suit land, an extent of 3. 47 cents of punja in survey field No. 162/1 B, Chinnareddipatti village, hamlet of Porundalure, Kulitalai Taluk, tiruchirapalli Dt. They prayed for the relief of declaration of there title and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, from interfering with there possession, if the Court should find that the plaintiff are not in possession.

(2.) THE suit land admittedly belong to one Lavunga Reddi against whom his creditor one Kundan Chetti (D. W. 1) filed the suit O. S. 362 of 1950 on the file of then district Munsif Court, Kulitalai, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1454, for principle and interest due on promissory notes. Kundan Chetti obtained an attachment before judgment of several properties belonging to Lavunga Reddi including the suit property on 16-7-1950 and on 23-8-1950 the attachment was made absolute. A decree was given in the suit on 30-1-1951 and the first execution petition E. P. 214 of 1953 was filed on 6-4-1953 seeking execution of the decree by sale of the suit property and other properties that had been attached before judgment.

(3.) PENDING the execution, the judgment-debtor Lavunga Reddi died and his widow pappathiammal was brought on record as a legal representative and execution continued. At the sale had on 25-11-1953, there were no bidders and the execution was adjourned 'for steps' in a week. Twelve items of properties had been attached before judgment and were sought to be proceed against in execution. While the sale thus stood adjourned on 5-12-1953 the Madras Indebted agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinance V of 1953 came to be made. On 7-121953, the execution petition was closed with the following observations: "no steps taken. Petition closed. Attachment to continue for two months". Clearly the plaintiffs, the decree-holders could take no steps then. The Act applied to the debt in question and in the Courts below, it was not seriously disputed that the execution petition came to be closed because of the coming into force of ordinance V of 1953.