KARAKA SOMULU Vs. REDDI APPALANAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question in the two appeals relates to the impact of the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act (Act XXVI of 1948-hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the right of the plaintiffs to maintain the suits for redemption and possession.

(2.) The facts lie in a small compass. The plaintiffs in O.S. Nos. 529 and 530 of 1949 are the same. The father of defendants 3 and 4 in O.S. No. 529 of 1949 (D.M.C. Vizianagaram) executed a usufructuary mortgage bond in respect of 50 cents of land in favour of defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiffs father purchased the equity of redemption by a sale-deed dated 21st February, 1920 from defendants 3 and 4 and their father. The father of defendants 5 and 6 in O.S. No. 530 of 1949 (who are defendants 3 and 4 in O.S. No. 529 of 1949) mortgaged an extent of 2 acres in favour of defendants 1 to 4. The plaintiff's father took an assignment of the equity of redemption of this mortgage also. Both the suits were filed for redemption and for possession of the mortgaged properties. The defendants inter alia contended that the documents executed in favour of the plaintiffs' assignors were not mortgages but only leases and, therefore, they had acquired occupancy rights in the said lands. Both the Courts found that the two documents (Exhibits A-8 and A-9) were mortgages, that the debts due under the said documents were fully discharged and that, therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to possession. The contesting defendants also raised the plea that, by reason of the provisions of the Act, the estate of the plaintiffs vested in the Government and, therefore, the plaintiff had no longer any interest in the said estate to enable them to continue the suits. The first Court accepted this plea and dismissed the suits, while the lower Appellate Court rejected the plea and decreed the suits. Hence, the second appeals.

(3.) Mr. Dikshitulu, the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants contends that, under the Act, the suit properties vested in the Government, and therefore, the plaintiffs could not continue the suits. The suits were filed on 10th December, 1949 and the Act came into force on 19th April, 1949. The Government notified the estate wherein the suit properties are situated, under section 3 of the Act, on and January, 1951. It is, therefore, clear that, on the date when the suits were filed, the plaintiffs had, admittedly, a subsisting interest in the properties mortgaged. Under section 3 of the Act, after the notified date, the entire estate stood transferred to the Government and vested in them. The question is whether the subsequent statutory transfer of the estate and the vesting of the same in the Government had the effect of non-suiting the plaintiffs. Such a transfer does not abate the suits. Order 22, rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code which governs a situation similar to that which has arisen in this case reads thus :