MARIMUTHU UDAIYAN Vs. SUBBARAYA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1 defendant sued the 1 and 8 plaintiffs and the 9 defendant in O.S. Suit No. 503 of 1885 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Salem, on a mortgage bond executed by them, and in execution of the decree obtained therein, the mortgaged properties were sold on the 27 October 1887 and were purchased by the 2nd defendant, who was placed in possession of the same after the sale had been confirmed and certificate issued to him.

(2.) In April 1881, the 3 defendant, father of defendants 4 to 7, became the purchaser of the property from the 2nd defendant and obtained possession of the same.

(3.) In June 1888 plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, all these minors, the sons of the 1 and 8th plaintiffs and of the 9 defendant applied under Section 294, Civil Procedure Code, to have the sale set aside an the ground, among others, that the 1 defendant himself purchased the property through his agent the 2nd defendant without having obtained the permission of the Court to bid at the sale. The District Munsif holding that the mortgage which had been made before the birth of the applicants was binding upon them, and that besides, their application was barred by the law of limitation, dismissed it on the 20 July 1888. The 3 defendant also was a party to these proceedings. In appeal the order of the District Munsif was reversed and the application remanded (on the 23 July 1890) for disposal on the merits, The District Munsif after going into the merits of (he case, came to the conclusion that the 1 defendant himself was the purchaser, and holding that the 3 defendant had no locus stand to take part in the proceedings and that he need not therefore recognize him as a necessary party at all to these proceedings, set aside the sale by his order, dated the 28 September 1891 (Exhibit F). This order appears to have been confirmed on an appeal which was preferred by the 2nd defendant to the District Court.