ARULANANDAM PILLAI Vs. MALAYA PILLAI NADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this suit the plaintiff-appellant seeks to enforce a mortgage on the plaint land which originally was in occupation of the first defendant and which was afterwards sold in a rent sale to the third defendant and by him transferred to the second defendant. The fourth defendant is the landlord.

(2.) The mortgage was not effected with the permission of the landlord and consequently under Section 125 of the Estates Land Act it is not binding on a purchaser in a revenue sale. The second defendant is, therefore, in no way bound by the mortgage unless it is established that the revenue sale was invalid. The plaintiff made certain allegations in his plaint to the effect that the sale was invalid because it was conducted collusively and fraudulently, that there was no proper notice by beat of tom-tom and that his mortgage right was not announced at the time of the sale or in the sale proclamation.

(3.) When the issues were framed, Issue No. 2 was framed on this allegation as follows: Whether the rent sale, under which the second defendant claims, is invalid for all or any of the reasons alleged in the plaint.