S R SRINIVASARAGHAVAN Vs. PADMAVATHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of rumba-konam in O. S. No. 3 of 1954. Defendant 1 is the appellant. The suit was laid for recovery of possession. Padmavathi Animal, the plaintiff in the case, died pending the appeal. Her legal representatives have been impleaded as party respondents to the appeal. Padmavathi Annual was the grandmother of the appellant. One Minakshisundaram Chettiar left behind him a son, Sitaraman, through his first wife, and another son, Ramaswami, through Padmavathi Animal, the second wife. Ramaswami died in 1931, leaving his widow, Rukmani Ammal, and his son. the appellant. In O. P. No. 117 of 1931, both Padmavathi Ammal and rukmani Ammal were appointed as joint guardians for the minor son of the latter, the appellant on 7-8-1932 by the District Judge of West Tanjore. Some years prior thereto, during the lifetime of Ramaswami, two suits were instituted in the Sub court, Kumbakonam. O. S. No. 72 of 1927, was one for partition filed by ramaswami against his step-brother Sitaraman. O. S. No. 74 of 1927 was filed by padmavathi Animal against her son and step-son for recovery of expenses incurred by her in connection with the marriage of her daughter. It must be mentioned that padmavathi Animal had already obtained a maintenance decree in O. S. No. 89 of 1917. In the decree for partition, the liability for maintenance was divided between the two sons and a revised decree was granted in favour of Padmavathi Ammal who was impleaded as defendant 8 to the partition suit. Partition of the properties was also effected between the two brothers. O. S. No. 74 of 1927 resulted in a decree in favour of Padmavathi Ammal as against both the brothers. That decree was put in execution, and the properties covered by the present suit, an exlent of 6 acres of land, were purchased by the decree-holder, Padmavathi Animal. Ex. A-2 is the sale certificate. Padmavathi Ammal complained that her possession was interfered with in March 1953, by the appellant, her grandson, and filed a suit for recovery of possession. The appellant contested the suit denying Padmavathi animal's title under Ex. A-2. He contested that the claim in O. S. No. 74 of 1927 was not binding on him, and that, even if it were valid, the purchase in Court auction evidenced by Ex. A-2 should enure for his benefit, as Padmavathi Ammal was one of his joint guardians along with his mother during his minority. Certain other pleas were also taken by him which it is unnecessary now to refer.

(2.) THE learned Subordinate Judge held that the decree in O. S. No. 74 of 1927 was valid and binding on the appellant and the purchase in Court-auction was not for his benefit but for the benefit of Padmavathi Ammal herself. He, however, was of opinion that Padmavathi Ammal should have obtained the sanction of the District court in the guardianship proceedings before she purchased in Court auction in execution of her decree and that therefore the appellant's share in the property would not vest in the purchaser. In that view, he held that the appellant would be entitled to a declaration that she was entitled to recover possession of one half share attributable to Sitaraman's branch and a decree for a half share of the purchase money from the appellant's properties. Strangely enough, the learned judge then proceeded to dismiss the suit. It is unfortunate that the learned Judge should not have bestowed some care in the drafting of the decree. The appellant has filed this appeal against that portion of the decree which contains the declaration.

(3.) THE judgment and decree of the lower Court is rather ununderstandable. A declaration is given in regard to Sitaraman's share of the property in the absence of Sitaraman from the record. It is the appellant's case that the entire properties belong to him. The decree itself is drafted, as I pointed out, in a way so as to nullify the effect of the very declaration granted by dismissing the entire suit. But, both the parties, however, proceeded before me on the footing that the decree is effective to grant a declaration in favour of Padmavathi Ammal for one half share of the suit properties together with a right to proceed against the other share for one half share of the sale price.