SATYAM Vs. KRISHNA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by Mattapalli Satyam, the 11th defendant against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam in O. S. No. 60/61 on his file.

(2.) The point in controversy is very simple and it is not necessary to state the facts in any detail. The 1st defendant is the father of defendants 2 and 5. Defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant for himself and as guardian for the 5th Defendant. and the 2nd defendant executed a registered sample mortgage bond dated 23-6-1952 in favour of the plaintiffs agreeing to repay the same with interest at 5 1/3 percent per annum. Defendants 3 and 4 were the sons born subsequently to the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant belongs to a family, the suit properties were brought to sale by the Revenue Authorities on 22-10-1953. They were purchased by one Dasari Ayodhya Ramayya, and his legal representatives are defendants 6 to 9. Defendants 6 to 9 in their turn alienated the portions of the suit properties to defendants 11 to 17. The 11th defendant who is the appellant in this appeal purchased item 1 of the suit property from defendants 6 to 9 under a registered sale deed dated 29-3-1958 for Rs. 19,500. As the mortgagors debt the present suit was filed by the mortgagee.

(3.) Defendants 1 to 6, 9, 13, 15 and 16 remained ex parte and the suit was resisted by the other defendants. The 11th defendant contended that he was not aware of the suit mortgage bond, or the consideration thereunder. It is averted that the plaintiffs were aware of the sale of the suit properties for recovery of the sales-tax and that the said sale is not subject to the liability under suit mortgage. He alleged that the 1st defendant Suryanarayanmurthy, Kamaraju, Paparao, Satyanarayanamurthi, and Anjaneyamurthi were five brothers who became indebted to the Government in large sums of money towards income-tax and sales-tax. For the recovery of those amounts proceedings were taken under the Revenue Recovery Act and Item I of the plaint schedule an upstair house of Viskhapatnam was sold at a Revenue sale. It was purchased by one Dasari Ayodhya Ramayya on 22-10-1953 and a sale certificate was issued by the District Collector to him, The 11th defendant purchased that house from defendants 6 to 9 and 10 under the registered sale deed dated 29-3-58 for Rs. 19,500 and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same in his own right. He would have it that his title is free of all charges and encumbrances including the suit mortgage. The plaintiffs are therefore not entitled to bring to sell that property for discharging the mortgage debt.