RAJA RAO Vs. ANANTHANARAYANAN CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants in this case are purchasers in court auctions, who have been deprived of their properties owing to the cancellation of the sales and who now seek restitution of the sums paid by them which have been rateably distributed among certain persons (respondents) holding decrees against the judgment-debtors. The District Munsif directed these persons to refund to appellant the amounts received by them; but his order was set aside on appeal to the District Judge, who held that appellants were not entitled to restitution either under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code or with reference to the Court's inherent powers under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) The facts of the case so far as they are necessary for disposal of these appeals are these :--The properties were attached and brought to sale in execution of the decree in Small Cause No. 274 of 1911 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura against one Mariyappan Chetti. His sons who on his death were made parties in execution, presented a claim petition (E. P. No. 539 of 1912) under Order 21 Rule 58 to the effect that the properties were trust properties in their hands and not liable under the decree. This was dismissed; and the sales proceeded. The sons however filed a suit (Original Suit No. 58 of 1914 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad) and ultimately obtained a decree declaring that the properties were trust properties and not liable to be proceeded against or sold in execution of the decree in Small Cause Suit No. 274 of 1911. They then obtained re-delivery of the properties with mesne profits under Section 144 of the Civil P. C.. The first question is whether appellants, the auction-purchasers, are also entitled to avail themselves of its provisions.

(3.) In my opinion the District Judge has rightly held that they are not, looking to the terms of the section. Restitution can only be granted under Section 144 on the application of a party to the "decree varied or reversed." What was this decree ?. The District Munsif who decided in appellant's favour did so on the footing that it was the order for attachment and sale, and that this order was superseded by the decree in O.S. No. 58 of 1914. The appeal was also argued before us on this basis. But the appellants were no parties to the order for sale; nor were they parties to the order dismissing Execution Petition No. 539 of 1912, which might be suggested on the alternative as the "decree varied or reversed ". The learned Vakil has argued that they may be treated as the representatives of the judgment debtors on the strength of the Full Bench Judgments in Veyindramuthu Pillai V/s. Maya Nadan (1919) I.L.R. 43 M 107 : 38 M.L.J. 32. F.B.. It may be remarked that these judgments did not lay down that the auction purchaser should in all circumstances, and for all purposes be entitled to pose as the representative of the judgment debtor. But apart from this, such a character would be of no avail to appellants here. As representatives of the judgment debtors who were the successors in interest of Mariappan Chetty they would have no claim either in law or equity to recover the amounts paid over by the Court to the respondents in satisfaction of the decrees which the latter had obtained against Mariappan Chetty and which were binding on his sons.