LexSRI RANGA NILAYAM RAMA KRISHNA RAO versus KANDOKOLU CHELLA Y AMMA ALIAS MANGAMMA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1950 Oot. l't, 806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1950] SRI RANGA NILAYAM RAMA KRISHNA RAO v. KANDOKOlU CHELLA Y AMMA alias MANGAMMA AND ANOTHER [SAIYID FAZL Au, MUKHERJEA and (HANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.] Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (IV of 1935), ss. 3 (D), 8, 10, 19-Sale of estate in execution of decree-Whether cwner ceases to be " Agriculturist " pending application to set aside sale- Applications to set aside sale and for relief under Act-Maintainabi- lity-Order confirming sale and granting relief-Legality-0.P.G. (1908), O.XXI, r. 90-Execution .ale-Appeal against order refusing to set aside sale-When 8"le becomes absolute and title passes- Receiver-Appointment of receiver, effect of. In execution of a, decree .obtained on a mortgage a village owned by the mortgagor which was included in the niortgage was sold by the court on the 6th July 1935 and it was purchased by the mortgagee. An application by the mortgagor under Q.XXI1 r. 90, C.P.O., for setting aside the sale for irregularities ~·as dismissed, the sale was confirmed and full sittisfaction of the decree was re- corded, on the 6tb March 1943. A few days afterwards the mort· gager and his adopted son ma.de an application under s. 19 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938, praying for relief unrler the ~A..ct, and, as this application also was dismissed they preferred t\vo appeals, one from the order dismissing this application and the other against the order of 6th March 1943 refusing to set aside the sale. The High Court of Madras held that, as the mortgagor's village had been sold be did not come within the purview of cl. (D) of the proviso to s- 3 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act and so be was entitled to claim relief under t.be Act and the debt stcod discharged under the provision of the Act, but the sale was not liable to be set aside ; and in accordrtnce with this judgment the decree-bolder wa• directed to pay the amount !o1· wbicb the property had been sold with interest thereon: Held per F.AZL ALI and MUKHERJEA JJ.-(i) that tbe con- clusions arl'ived at by the High Court were self·contra:lictory beca.uso if the ea.le was effective on the date it was held or con- firmed, the decree was also satisfied on that dais and the judgment- . debtors were no longer entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act ; (ii) that the High Court was not justified in law in deciding the appeal on the footing that the judgment-debtors ceased to be owners of the village from the date of sale and on that account were not hit by cl. \D) of the proviso to s. 3 of the Act inasmuch as when an appeal is preferred from an order rejecting an appli· cation under O.XXI, r. 90, C.P.C., to set aside an execution sale, the sale does not bscome absolute until the matter is finally decided by the appellate court. .• S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 807 Per CHANDRASEKHAI<A AIYAR J.-After the execution sale in !950 1935 the only interest which the ji;dgment-debtors had in the village was to have the sale set aside under the relevant pro- Sri Ratiga. ·visions of the Civil Procedure Code and this interest, not being Ntlayani &ma an interest contemplated by s. 3 (iii (a) & (b) and s. 19 (1) of the Krishna Ra.o Act, they were not "agriculturists" and were not entitled to any v. relief under the Act. Kandokori Held also, per FAZL ALI and MUKHERJEA JJ.~A person does Oh,llayamma not cease to be a land-holder of an estate within the meaning of and Another. cl. (D) to the proviso to s. 3 of the Act merely because the estate is placed in the hands of a receiver. Bhawani K<mwar v. Mathurn Pra•ad Singh (I.L.R. 40 Cal. 89) and Chandramani Shaha v. A.narja" Bibi \l.L.R. 61 Cal. 945) r~ferred to. Judgment of the Madras High Court reversed. APPELLATE JuRISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 56 and 57 of 1949. Appeals from the orders of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (\N'adsworth and Patanjali • Sastri JJ.) dated 24th October, 1945, in A.A.O. , Nos. 372 of 1943 and 634 of 1944 which were appeals from the orders of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore in E.A. No. 440 of 1937 and C.M.P. No. 152 of 1943 in 0.5. No. 87 of 1923. P. Somasundaram (V. V. Chaudhry, with him) for the appellant. V. Rangachari (K. Mangachari, with him) for the respondents. 1950. October 17. The Court delivered judgment as follows. F AZL Au J. -These appeals arise out of an execu- tion proceeding, and the main point to be decided in them is what is t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.