E SUBBARAYA PILLAI Vs. RAJA OF KARVETNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this suit the present Rajah of Karvetnagar seeks to recover possession from the defendants of certain villages on payment of such sum, it any, as may be found due.

(2.) Both the Subordinate Judge of North Arcot and the Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Madras were in agreement that the legal relation between the plaintiff and the first defendant is settled and determined by a contract in relation to the said villages entered into on August 25, 188S, between Sri Maharajulangaru, the plaintiff's father, and the first defendant Saravana Pillai, who was the first defendant, is now dead, but is represented in this appeal, The remaining defendants claimed to be bona fide purchasers for value from the first defendant without notice of any claim by the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge held that upon the construction of the said contract Saravana Pillai was the owner of the villages, and agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 99,568-15-6, to be paid or secured as stated in the fifth paragraph of the said contract of August 25, 1888. The High Court, on the other hand, held that upon the true construction of the contract the plaintiff was the beneficial owner of the villages and Saravana Pillai only the legal owner, and that in the matter of pecuniary obligations incurred by Saravana Pillai in connection with the purchase of the villages, and in the matter of the other money dealings between him and the plaintiff, there was found due from the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 99,568-15-6 in settlement of accounts. It is admitted in the judgments of the High Court that if the paid contract were a contract for sale the suit would essentially be one for the specific performance of a contract, and in that case it would be clearly barred under Art. 113 of the Indian Limitation Act. It is well to bear in mind that the terms of this section relate to any contract.

(3.) On the view taken by the High Court of the contract, however, it was held that the suit is really one for the possession of immoveable property by a beneficial owner thereof against the legal owner on payment, if necessary, of such sum, if any, as may be found due; that the execution of a conveyance by the first defendant to the plaintiff was not essential, and is unnecessary if he gets a decree for the recovery of the villages as beneficial owner.