RAJAH KOCHERLOKOTA VENKATA JAGANNATHA RAO GARU Vs. (MAHARAJAH RAVU) VENKATA KUMARA MAHIPATI SURYA RAO BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The circumstances, which led to the action giving rise to these consolidated appeals brought by both the parties, may be shortly stated. One Krishna Rao, the late Zamindar of Polavaram in the Madras Presidency, borrowed, on different dates, from the Maharajah of Pittapur (to be described hereinafter as the plaintiff) large sums of money; and secured the payment thereof by executing three successive mortgages of his estate in favour of the creditor. The last of these mortgages was granted on 22 October, 1913, as a security for a loan of more than three lakhs of rupees; and it was on the strength of this mortgage that the plaintiff instituted, after the death of the mortgagor, a suit for the recovery of the debt, impleading as defendant the mortgagor's widow. She subsequently adopted a minor boy, Jagannatha Rao, as a son to her deceased husband, and the adopted son was then added as a defendant (to be referred to hereinafter as the defendant). The suit resulted in a decree for more than four lakhs of rupees, to be realised by the sale of the mortgaged property. The decree-holder brought the property to sale, and on 28 October 1920, he himself purchased it with the leave of the Court for six lakhs of rupees. After deducting from that price the sum due to him under the decree, he deposited the balance, Rupees 139,986-1-0 in Court.

(2.) It appears that the widow and her son were anxious to retain the village of Polavaram (with its hamlets), which was the ancestral property of the Zamindar; and it was, therefore, arranged between the auction-purchaser and the minor's mother that the former should re- convey for the sum deposited by him in Court, the village to the minor. But that sum was claimed by the puisne mortgagees, and it was then agreed that the minor's mother, who was his guardian, should pay Rs. 139,986-1-0 for purchasing the village in question. Pursuant to this arrangement, the auction-purchaser and the guardian submitted, on 29 November 1920, an application to the Court stating the terms of the compromise and asking it to sanction the compromise as a transaction beneficial to the minor. Thereupon the Court made the following order:

(3.) The sale of the property sold in auction on 28 October 1920 is confirmed, with the exception of the property set out in the compromise petition of 29 November 1920, which the decree-holder has agreed to leave to the minor Zamindar of Polavaram on the terms of the compromise petition. A sale certificate for the extent of property, the sale of which is confirmed, will be issued to the plaintiff.