PATTANI VALAPPIL PAYYANATAN KRISHNA Vs. MANALIL INKIRIAS GOVINDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As it has been found that there was necessity for the sale to the extent of a substantial amount (viz) Rs. 1001, out of Rs. 1400, the proper course for the Courts to follow was in my opinion to uphold the sale instead of directing it to be set aside on condition of the plaintiffs paying the amount for which necessity was proved.

(2.) This is the effect of the decisions in Thalagara Ramanna V/s. Kalagare Gangayya (1913) 27 M.L.J. 132 Kannan Chetty V/s. Ainirithammal (1914) 1 L.W. 877 and Asa Varada Seshamma v. Bava Venkatakrishnarayanim (1916) 33 I.C. 833.

(3.) For the respondents Mr, K.P.M. Menon relied on decisions in Kunhamma Umtna V/s. Ibrahim Haji (1913) 12 M.L.T. 264 and Padammah V/s. Themana Amma (1897) I.L.R. 17 Mad. 232 and Second Appeal No. 782 of 1919 (un-reported) but those were casps of mortgages and in such cases different considerations arise from those which arise in cases of sales.