SWAMI HATHIRAMJI MUTT Vs. A KRISHNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant against confirming judgment in a suit brought to set aside the Court-sale held on 19-3-1957 of the schedule property, cancellation of the sale certificate, recovery of possession and for accounts of the profits in the mean time. The respondent who was the defendant in the suit had purchased the property in the Court-sale for Rs.27,500/-. The suit instituted on 20-6-1969 in the Sub-Court, Chittoor and registered as O.S.No.58 of 1969 was transferred to the Sub-Court, Tirupati subsequently and was registered as O.S.No.62 of 1971. In the suit the appellant raised the following contentions :

(2.) To appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, an elucidation of the facts in necessary. The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (T.T.D.) instituted O.S.No. 51 of 1937 in the Sub-Court, Chittoor for declaration of title and possession of the suit properties and for mesne profits. It is the submission that the suit had been filed against Mahant Sree Prayag Doss Jee Garu, Mahant of Hathiramjee Muth which is sought to be inferred from Ex.B-20, the application for execution of the decree under Order 21, Rule 11 C.P.C. and Ex.B-49 the application in E.P.No.51 of 1954. That suit was decreed as prayed for with direction that separate application should be made for calculation of the mesne profits. I.A.No.19 of 1946 was filed for determination of mesne profits and the final decree was also passed in the suit. E.P.No.51 of 1954 was filed by the T.T.D. for realisation of Rs.2,15,285-1-6 and costs by sale of several properties of Hathiramjee Mutt including the property in question. The property was ordered to be sold by orders passed on 24-9-1956 in the execution case. The respondent purchased the property, of which the appellant was dispossessed on 19-3-1957 and the respondent was put in possession on 20-3-1962. E.A.Nos.223 and 259 of 1957 were filed in E.P.No.51 of 1954 under Sections 47 and 151 and Order 21, Rule 86 C.P.C. to set aside the sale on the ground that in appeal before this Court the determination of the mesne profits as had been done by the Trial Court was reduced for which the proceedings should be restarted. Those applications were dismissed on 24-4-1958 (Ex.B-1) and the appeal preferred to this Court registered as A.A.O.No.28 of 1959 was dismissed on 22-12-1961, marked as Ex.B.23. Thereafter the appellant again filed application (Ex.B-29) under Order 21, Rule 90 and Section 47 read with Section 151 C.P.C. registered as E.A.No.106 of 1960 on the grounds that the sale proclamation did not contain the particulars of the properties such as the dimensions, the taxes paid and their popular names, that the sales were held in a hurry for which the appellant had no time to bring bidders of his own, that the respondent who had purchased other properties along with this property was a benamidar for the decree-holder and that the 1st Respondent viz., T.T.D. invited the intending bidders to meet him at his office and when some bidders did meet, it intimated them and gave them wrong information concerning the value. Some other grounds also were raised during the arguments but are not relevant for the decision of the present case. That application was dismissed on 3-3-1962 and the appeal carried against the order was also dismissed on 11-8-1964, marked as Ex.B.30. Thereafter the appellant again filed an application under Order 21, Rule 100 C.P.C., registered as E.A. No. 149 of 1862, saying that the Mahants were not interested in showing the property as Dharmasala as the previous Mahant, Sri Mahant Narayanadossjee claimed all the Muth properties as his private properties and it was not to his interest to claim the Dharmasala as a specific endowment of which he was merely a specific trustee and the property could not be proceeded against for a decretal debt, if at all, of Sri Hathiramji Muth. Such a contention had been raised for the first time in that application which is marked as Ex.B. 15 to the record. In the order passed on 11-10-1962 the application was rejected (Ex.B-16). That order became final having not been appealed against.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit recording all the findings against the appellant which were also confirmed by the learned single Judge.