CHILAKAMARTI KOTAIAH Vs. ADDANKI VENKATA SUBBAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be answered by the Full Bench is whether a suit on the allegation that the defendant had purchased property in his own name at a court auction for the benefit of the plaintiff at a time when he was acting as the agent of the plaintiff would fall within the scope and ambit of Section 66, C.P.C.

(2.) The facts necessary for the purpose of this enquiry may be briefly narrated. The plaintiff's father died, in the year 1931 leaving debts and some immoveable property. The plaintiff was at that time a minor. His mother who was illiterate found herself unequal to the task of managing the properties and sought the assistance of the defendant to manage the properties and to discharge the debts. He assumed management in 1931 which continued till 1940. The defendant persuaded all the creditors except one to give remission and also arranged for the sale of some of the properties to discharge the debts so settled with the creditors. But one creditor by name Lakshmamma, who was not willing to give up any part of her claim filed O.S. No.798 of 1932, obtained a decree and brought the properties in dispute to sale in execution of the decree. They were purchased by the defendant in his own name for the benefit of the plaintiff and with the funds furnished by the plaintiff's mother.

(3.) The suit was resisted mainly on the defence that Section 66, C.P.C. was a bar to it. It was decreed by the Trial Court and was affirmed on appeal by the District Judge. The Second Appeal carried by the defendant was heard by Ramaswamy Gounder, J. He passed an order of remand directing the appellate Judge to record fresh findings on certain points and, while doing so, he observed: