LAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. OFFICIAL RECEIVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There were two suits tried by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly. One of them was O.S. No. 10 of 1930 and the other was O.P. No. 41 of 1930. Both were tried together upon the same evidence. The important issues are Issue No. 2 in the original suit and Issue No. 1 in the original petition. Issue No. 2 in the original suit is: Is the hypothecation bond alleged in the plaint true and supported by consideration?

(2.) Issue No. 1 in the original petition is: Is respondent 1 an encumbrancer in good faith and for valuable consideration?

(3.) In the original suit respondent 1 in the original petition, the Official Receiver of Tinnevelly, was the petitioner. Upon reading those two issues it appears to me that both of them raise a common question, viz., whether the encumbrance was a good one or not and this was the view taken by the District Judge who had before him the appeal against the decree in O.P. No. 41 of 1930. He says: The question at issue in this appeal has been decided in O.S. No. 10 of 1930 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge. That decision is now final and binding on both parties as no appeal has been filed against it. Hence this appeal cannot arise.