PETHAPERUMAL AMBALAM Vs. CHIDAMBARAM CHETTIAR
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
CHIDAMBARAM CHETTIAR, MINOR THROUGH PROPERTY GUARDIAN, P.E.
Click here to view full judgement.
Rajagopala Aiyangar, J. -
(1.) This second appeal has been referred to a Bench at the instance of Ramaswami J. for the reason that the case raised a point as to the legal effect of the death of a judgment-debtor after the issue of a sale certificate, but before the auetionpurchaser obtains delivery of possession by proclamation and affixture under Order 21 Rule 96, C.P.C. which is not covered by authority.
(2.) One Uthandarayan Ambalam was originally the owner of the properties in suit and the plaintiff's paternal grandfather, Chidamabaram Chettiar had a money claim against him. Before a suit could be filed for the realisation of the dues. Uthandarayan died in September 1924, leaving a widow, Meenakshi and his mother Alagu who are stated to have entered into possession of these properties. Therefore Chidambaram Chettiar filed O.S. No. 457 Of 1925 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Devakottai, for the recovery of the moneys due to him impleading Meenakshi and Alagu as defendants, obtained a decree, attached and brought to sale among others the properties now in suit, and purchased them himself. The sale was held on 13-8-1928 and was confirmed on 14-8-1928.
(3.) In due course, the purchaser applied in E. A. No. 348 of 1929 for the delivery of possession of the properties purchased and as these were admittedly in possession of tenants delivery of possession was effected by proclamation and affixture on 87- 1929. Meenakshi the widow of Uthandarayan is stated to have remarried sometime before 1928 and Alagu the mother, who became the heir by reason thereof, died on 22-11-1928. No legal representatives of Uthandarayan or Alagu were impleaded in O. S. No. 457 of 1925 after Alagu's death.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.