GURRAM RAMAMOHANARAO Vs. KODA KANCHARYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit is filed for redemption of a mortgage by the 1st res- pondent, The Trial Court decreed the suit for redemption. On appeal preferred by defendants 1 to 6, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal by confirming the decree of the trial court for redemption.

(2.) The necessary facts leading to the filing of the suit may be stated thus. The suit property is a house In Vljayawada. It originally belonged to one Majji Krlshnamurthy. He mortgaged it In favour of Maddula Padmavathi for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- by executing a registered mortgage deed on 19-5-1950. He created a second mortgage by including another Item also for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- by a deed dated 22-5-1950 in favour of Velamuri Saryanarayana, the predecessor in title of the defendants. We are not concerned in this litigation with the first mortgage mentioned above. When Majji Krlshnamurthy did not pay the Municipal taxes due on the house property, the Municipality filed a suit, OS. No. 374 of 1954 on the file of the court of the District Munsif, Vljayawada, against him. The suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 80 8-6 on 17-9-1954 declaring a charge for the decree amount on the house. In execution of that decree, a sale was held on 25-2-1963. The plaintiff became the court-auction-purchaser for a sum of Rs. 1,100/- subject to the two mortgages. The sale was confirmed on 30-3-1963. Subsequently the Plaintiff took possession of the house through court on 18-4-1963. That is how the plaintiff became interested in the suit house. While that was what happened in the suit filed by the Muncipality to recover arrears of property tax, the mortgagee of the second mortgage mentioned above filed a suit on his mortgage In O.S. No. 67 of 1954 on the file of the District Munsif's Court. Vijayawada, to recover a sum of Rs. 2857-3-0. A preliminary decree was passed on 30-8-1954. The mortgagor was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3.513- 20 Subsequently a final decree was passed on 13-12-1954 for the sale of the hypotheca, the suit house. In pursuance of the final decree a sale was held on 22-4-1957. The mortgagee, viz., the predecessor in title of the defendants purchased it for Rs. 800/-. On 19-8-1960. before the confirmation of the sale the mortgagee-purchaser transferred his rights in the suit property to one Raghavafah, who died in the year 1960. After his death, defendants I to 6 sons of Raghavaiah and defendant No. 7 his widow succeeded to his rights In the suit house. That is how defendants I to 7 became Intrested In the suit house. After these defendants succeeded to the righcs of Raghavaiah in the suit house, the sale was confirmed on 5-8-1963. After the confirmation of the sale when the defendants filed an application for delivery of possession, the plaintiff filed the present suit to redeem the mortgage in pursuance of the decree passed in the suit filed on which the suit property was sold and it was confirmed in favour of the defendants.

(3.) From the above facts it is clear that while the sale in pursuance of the mortgage was held on 22-4-1957 the sale was confirmed much later on 5.8,1963. In batween these two dates the suit house also was brought to sale in execution of the decree obtained by Municipality for the property tax due on the suit house and it was sold in court auction on 25.2.1963, the plaintiff being the court- auction-purchaser and the sale was confirmed on 30.3.1963. Thus, though the sale in favour of the plaintiff was later than the sale in favour of the predecessors in title of the defendants its confirmation is earlier. But nonetheless it is a well established proposition of law that once a court auction sale is confirmed, the court-auction-purchaser gets title from the date of the court sale and not merely from the date of the confirmation of the sale. If authority Is needed see : K. Narayan vs. P. Suryanarayan (I) (A.I.R 1973 A.P., p. 94) and Janak Raj vs. Gurdlal Singh (2) (A.I.R. 1967 S.C., p 608). In this view of the matter it can be said that the sale in favour of the predecessors in title of the defendants in execution of the mortgage decree is earlier to the sale in favour of the plaintiff in execution of the decree obtained by the Municipality.