PANAGANTI RAMA RAYANIMGAR (DEAD) Vs. UMADE RAJAHA RAJE DAMARA KUMARA VENKATALINGAM NAYANIM BAHADUR VARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representative of the deceased 1 defendant is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff in the following circumstances.

(2.) The plaintiff is the Raja of Kalahasti. In O.S. No. 22 of 1908 on the file of the District Court of North Arcot, the 2nd defendant, the brother of the 1 defendant, obtained on 29 March, 1909, a money decree for Rs. 81,548-5-4 (Ex. A) against the predecessor of the present plaintiff who was sued as the legal representative of the previous Zemindar. Against this decree the judgment-debtor filed A.S. No. 93 of 1909 to the High Court; and applied for stay of execution of the decree pending disposal of the appeal. Execution was stayed on the applicant undertaking to furnish security for the performance of any decree that may be passed in the appeal. Ex. B is the security bond. Under it, 70 villages attached to the Kalahasti Taluk in the North Arcot District, subject to certain encumbrances, were furnished as security. The document described as the " Security Bond executed by us" (The Rajah of Kalahasti) runs as follows: ... Therefore we have furnished as security the properties worth six lakhs of rupees described in the schedule for acting according to the final decree that may be passed in Appeal No. 93 of 1909. A sum of about Rs. 2,74,426 is still due to Venkatagiri Rajah Garu on the said property under the decree obtained by him in O.S. No. 200 of 1907 on the file of the Sub-Court, North Arcot. We and our brothers have maintenance charge on the said property also besides on the whole of the Kalahasti Estate. The said property has been furnished as security under this bond subject to the aforesaid encumbrances. This is the security bond executed and given with our consent.

(3.) Appeal No. 93 of 1909 was dismissed and the Lower Court's decree was confirmed on 8 November, 1910. In C. S. No. 125 of 1899 a decree was passed by the High Court at the instance of one Sadagopachari against the Rajah of Kalahasti for about Rs. 9,000 and odd and it was transferred for execution to the District Court of North Arcot. In execution of that decree nine out of the 70 villages furnished as security in Appeal No. 93 of 1909 were proclaimed and sold, and were bought by the 1 defendant in the present suit for a sum of Rs. 32,000. Ex. V (4 January, 1912) is the sale proclamation and Ex. D (19 April, 1912) is the sale certificate. The sale was actually -held on 5 February, 1912. In both these Exs. V and D, the sale is mentioned to be subject to the security bond executed by the Rajah in Appeal No. 93 of 1909. Ex. D says: The auction sale amount is Rs. 32,000 subject to the debt of Rs. 19,500 due to the Venkatagiri Maharajah Garu under the decree in O.S. No. 27 of 1910 on the file of the Sub-Court and subject to the security bond of Rs. one lakh given by the defendant in respect of the decree in O.S. No. 22 of 1908 in the District Court....