GURUSWAMI NAIDU Vs. GOVINDAPPA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by the 3 defend ant against the order of the District Munsif of Ranipet in C. M. P. 605 of 1931 in O.S. No. 12 of 1920, extending the time for payment of a sum of money, which according to the terms of the decree was to be paid, by plaintiffs within six months before recovering possession of the suit properties from the defendants. The District Munsif construed the decree to be one substantially in the nature of a redemption decree, and in the exercise of his discretion under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 7 of Order XXXIV, Civil Procedure Code, granted an extension of time. The amount has also been paid into court. The correctness of this order is questioned in this Civil Revision Petition. It is urged that the lower Court is wrong in construing (he decree as in 1 he nature of a redemption decree, and that it had no jurisdiction to extend the time fixed in the decree for payment. It is further argued by Mr. Rajah Ayyar for the petitioner, that the soundness of the decision in Idambu Parayan V/s. Pethu Reddy 54 Ind. Cas. 451 : 43 M 357 : 37 M L J 695 : 11 L W 25 : 27 M L T 216, on which the order of the lower Court rests is open to doubt, and that decision requires reconsideration.

(2.) Before discussing this point, let me state briefly the facts of this case. The plaintiffs (as reversioners) filed O.S. No. 12 of 1920 in the District Munsifs Court, Ranipet, for a declaration of their reversionary right and of the invalidity of a mortgage and sale effected by the widow (1 defendant). During the pendency of the suit, the widow died and the plaintiffs appear to have got the plaint amended, by the addition of a prayer for recovery of possession of the suit properties free from all incumbrances created by the widow. After a due inquiry the court seems to have found that a portion of the mortgage debt was valid and binding on the reversioners (plaintiffs) and consequently they could not recover possession unconditionally. It looks as if the court thought, that without paying a certain sum of money to the extent of redeeming the mortgages binding on plaintiffs, they should not recover possession. The decretal portion of the judgment is worded thus: The plaintiffs will therefore recover the suit properties from 3rd defendant on paying Rs. 2 819 9-11. Six months time is granted for payment of the money. The properties will be a charge for the money till then. I pass a decree accordingly.

(3.) Against this decree, there was an appeal to the first Appellate Court, and the, matter went up to the High Court which ended in plaintiffs favour on January 12, 1931. The present petition for extension of time for the payment was put in subsequently and granted by the District Munsif.