(1.) This appeal is preferred against a common order made in C.M.A. Nos. 121 and 126 of 1974 on the file of the District Court, Tiruchirapalli. The appeal was admitted on two substantial questions of law which are as follows:
(2.) Counsel for the appellant contends that during the period, a sum of Rs. 196.69 had been paid towards kist and this amount should have been deducted. Equally so, with regard to the house property, the period involved is seventeen years and six months and the Appellate Court had come to the conclusion that Rs. 25 per mensem will be a proper assessment of the income derived from the property and the total amount payable is Rs. 5,230. Here -again the contention of the appellant is to the effect that the house -tax for the period had been paid amounting to Rs 151.50 and it is not being disputed, Further it was claimed that the house had been electrified and water tap connection also secured and on these accounts, he had spent a sum of Rs. 2.000. But it has not been deducted. Apart from this, a further deduction, to the extent of Rs. 2,207.24 has been claimed representing the amount paid by the Court -auction -purchaser to discharge a mortgage decree over the property and as proved by Exhibit B -58.
(3.) The Appellate Court had disallowed all the deductions claimed by the Court -auction -purchaser on the ground that the Court -auction -purchaser had not chosen to file any application under Sec. 144 of Civil Procedure Code, and in an application filed by the second defendant under Sec. 144 of Civil Procedure Code, it is not open to the Court to grant any relief in respect of the deductions claimed as stated above. Further it had taken into account that the improvements, if any, made, had been done with the full knowledge of the application tiled by the second defendant to set aside the Court -auction -sale immediately after it was held on 17th August, 1955 and therefore he has made the improvements at his own risk and he cannot claim any deductions for improvements.