DAREPPA ALAGOUDA Vs. MALLAPPA SHIVALINGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts out of which this appeal arises are not in dispute. The plaintiff's father Shidramappa mortgaged his two lands, Survey Nos. 383/1 and 383/1A, to the defendant Dareppa for Rs. 400 on 24-6-1929. Out of these two ands, Survey NO. 383/1A wag rayatawa and Survey No. 383/1 was watan inam which could not be alienated beyond the lifetime of Shidramappa. The defendant filed suit No. 359 of 1935 against the mortgagor Shidramappa to recover the amount due on the mortgage by sale of the two mortgaged lands. During the pendency of the suit, Shidramappa died and the plaintiff was brought on record as his legal representative on 26-10-1926. The suit ended in a decree for Rs. 706 with costs and future interest payable by instalments, and it directed that in case of default the mortgaged lands or a sufficient portion thereof should be sold and the amount realised. On a default in the payment of the instalments, the defendant executed the decree and both the lands were sold by auction and purchased by the defendant himself. In the execution proceedings the plaintiff contended that his father could not mortgage the watan land beyond his lifetime and that after his death the mortgage became void to that extent. But it was held that the executing Court could not go behind the decree and as the decree ordered the sale of both the watan and non- watan lands, the plaintiff's objection was not tenable. He was referred to a separate suit, and he, therefore, filed this suit for a declaration that the decree in suit No. 359 of 1935 was void and not binding against him so far as it affected the watan land and for a declaration that the sale of the watan land was illegal and did not confer any title on the defendant who had purchased it at the auction. The plaintiff also asked for an injunction restraining the defendant from taking possession of the suit land. The defendant contended that he was a watandar of the same watan to which the land in dispute belonged, that, therefore, the mortgage by the plaintiff's father in his favour beyond his lifetime was valid, that the plaintiff was a party to the suit in which the decree was passed and therefore the decree was binding on him, that the plaintiff's contention was barred as res judicata and that the suit in the present form was barred under Section 47, Civil P.C., 1908. Both the Courts below held that the defendant was not a watandar of the same watan, and that being a finding of fact, the question does not arise in this second appeal. The trial Court further held that the mortgage of the watan land was void after the death of the plaintiff's father, that the plaintiff as his father's legal representative could not raise that contention in suit No. 359 of 1935, that therefore his present contention was not barred as res judicata and that the present suit was not barred under Section 47, Civil P.C. It, therefore, gave the plaintiff a decree declaring that the decree in suit No. 359 of 1935 was null and void as regards the watan land and that the sale of that land in execution of that decree was also null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The defendant was restrained from executing the said decree against the said watan land or from taking possession thereof from the plaintiff. In granting the declaration the trial Court held that the Court which, tried the mortgage suit had no jurisdiction to pass a mortgage decree against the watan land and therefore it declared the decree itself to be null and void. But the learned First Class Subordinate Judge (with appellate powers) did not think the decree to be null and void, but held that it was not binding on the plaintiff. All the other findings recorded by the trial Court were confirmed and instead of the declaration granted by the trial Court, he granted a declaration that the auction sale in execution of the mortgage decree did not affect the plaintiff's own independent interest in the watan land in suit and did not convey to the defendant that interest from the plaintiff. In other respects, the decree of the trial Court was confirmed. The defendant has now come in second appeal.

(2.) The principal contention urged on behalf of the appellant is that the plaintiff as the legal representative of his father in suit No. 359 of 1935 should have raised the contention that on his father's death the mortgage of the watan land became ineffective and therefore no decree for its sale could be passed against him. It is, however, obvious that the plaintiff was not a party to that suit in his individual or personal capacity, but he was impleaded only as a legal representative of his father to proceed with the suit under Order 22, Rule 4, Civil P.C. Sub-rule (2) of that rule says: Any person so made a party may make any defence appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased defendant.

(3.) This obviously means that he can make a defence only in his capacity as a legal representative of the deceased defendant. As observed in 4 Lah. 721 when a party to a suit dies, his legal representatives are appointed merely in order that the suit might proceed, and a decision be arrived at. It is the rights and disabilities of the original parties that have to be considered and not those of the legal representatives themselves. All that the legal representatives can, therefore, do is to take up the suit at the stage at which it was left when the original party died land to continue it. It is not open to them to assert their own individual or hostile title to the suit. It follows, therefore, that if any defence to the suit was not open to the deceased defendant, his legal representative would not be at liberty to plead that defence. If, for instance, the deceased defendant was estopped from putting forward any defence, his legal representatives, though not themselves similarly estopped, would not be at liberty to put forward that defence. That would be allowing the legal representatives to set up or agitate a new or individual right, and it is not open to them to put forward any personal defence. As held in A.I.R. 1935 Mad. 522 if a legal representative wants to raise any new point which the deceased party could not have raised, he must get himself impleaded in his personal capacity, or he must challenge the decree in a separate suit. The same view was taken by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in I.L.R. (1940) All. 153.3