MADDALA SREERANGANAYAKULU Vs. GRANDHI VENKATASUBBAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the Order of the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur, disallowing the claim of the appellants for mesne profits for' the years 1949 to 1951.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated. The appellants are the second judgment-debtor and the legal representative of the deceased first judgment-debtor and they sought to obtain redelivery of possession with mesne profits. A decree was obtained by the first respondent in O.S. No. 65 of 1935 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Narsapur, on the foot of a mortgage executed by the two judgment-debtors. In execution of the decree, the properties were brought to sale and were purchased by the present 3rd respondent on 13th December, 1948 and the sale was confirmed on 17th January, 1949. Thereupon he took delivery of the properties on 1st April, 1953. Meanwhile, the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (IV of 1938) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was amended by inserting section 23-A. The effect of this amendment was that if it was satisfied that the judgment-debtor was an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of the Act, the sale or foreclosure would be set aside and thereupon the sale or foreclosure should be deemed as not to have taken place at all. Taking advantage of this provision of law, the appellants moved the Court to avoid the sale and to scale down the decree. This request was ultimately granted by the High Court of Madras in A.A.O. No.193 of 1949. After their success in the High Court, they filed an application in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Narsapur, for redelivery of the properties and for mesne profits under sections 47, 144 and 151, Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) The 3rd respondent had no objection to re-deliver the properties but contested the petition as regards the liability to pay mesne profits. The trial Court dismissed the petition in regard to mesne profits in the view that the appellants could not claim them as there was no statutory provision in that behalf. Aggrieved by that order, the appellants have preferred this appeal. The only point for consideration is whether the appellants could get mesne profits from the auction-purchaser. The answer to this depends upon the language of section 23-A which reads thus":-