JOSHYALA NAGABHUSHANAM Vs. KATRAGADDA LAKSHMANADHARAO NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Directive Principles" will become "dead wood" if they are not given due recognition in the interpretative process, particularly in regard to the Legislation wherein the social objective is dominant. The construction in such circumstances must be purposive construction and not literary, grammatical or pedantic especially so when the language of the legislation is lamentably vague and ambiguous.

(2.) In this case, the language employed in Rule 6 and Rule 16 (7) framed under the lard Ceiling Act, is the main target of interpretation and' in particular, the words "to the other persons interested" as used in Rule 6. Before turning to the interpretative process, relavant facts may briefly be noticed. The revisionist herein is a simple mortgagee-decree holder and respondents 2 to 7 are the mortgagors-landholders-declarants. Ac.20. 78 cents of land were mortgaged in favour of the revisionist in the year 1967 and in order to realise the mortgage amount, a suit was filed in the year 1971,and a decree was obtained and in pursuance thereof an application was filed for the appointment of a Receiver-Commissioner for taking the possession of the said land and so the land was taken into possession on 24-12-1973. As the matter stood thus pursuant to the land Ceiling Act the declarants filed declarations, showing inter alia, also the land covered by the mortgage-decree showing therein that the said land was sold under agreement of sale on 24-9-1970 and also possession was given in pursuance thereof to the vendee. When such was the case, the revisionist filed three I. As. 1,2, and 3 of 1978. I.A No.1/1978, was filed for participating and cross-examining the declarant; I.A.No.2/1978 was for impleading the petitioner-mortgagee as respondent and I.A.No. 3/78. was for clubbing the C.Cs filed by the mortgagee as well as the mortgagor-declarant. The Primary Tribunal dismissed the I A.No.2/1978. But, however, allowed the other two ! As. The Appellate Tribunal, however, allowed the appeal holding that the mortgagee applicant was the decree holder in a simple mortgage decree and, therefore, he had no right of possession to the pioperty declared by the respondent-declarant herein. Therefore, he does not suffer in any way if he does not participate in the enquiry. Hence the devision.

(3.) Sri Suryanarayana Rao, learned counsel submits that even assuming that I.A.No.2/1978. was dismissed. it does not come in the way of the petitioner participating, nevertheless in the proceedings, he being a party interested within the meaning of Rule 6 of the Rules framed under the Act. It cannot be reckoned as one and the same. The concept of Rule 6 and also the object of Rule 6 are independent of Rule 16(7) and also because of the fact that in the very declaration found in enclosure V, it has been specifically mentioned by the declarant himself that the revisionist herein was a person Interested and under column 5 of the said Enclosure, it was also stated that the particular piece of land was the subject-matter of the mortgage and, therefore, on any account the revisionist should be deemed to be a "person interested". It is the "further contention of the learned counsel that he is not only a simple mortgagee but he is now a decree holder as against the property under dispute which has been shown in the declaration as said to have been sold under agreement of sale as early as in the year 1970 whrn the very declratory order issued by the court shows that the physical possession of the very same property was taken from the declarant himself by the Commissioner-receiver appointed by the Court and, therefore, surely he wii' be entitled to canvass the correctness or otherwise, of the agreement of sale as his rights will be certainly affected and jeopardised, if he is shut out of the proceedings. The counter contention of Sri Jagannadha Rao, the learnad counsel for the respondent, is that the Appellate Tribunal misconceived the entire position. The interests of the revisionist cannot be said to have been jeopardised because his rights can be said to be affected only at a stage when the declarant is declared to be in surplus and in pursuance thereof if the disputed land is sought to be surrendered, then only it would be wide open to the revisionist to agitate at that time of surrender, under section 10 of the Act. Until then, he cannot be allowed to step in and demolish the case and also harass the declarant in establishing his case.