SANKARI AMMAL Vs. RAMACHANDRA AYYAR
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Click here to view full judgement.
Satyanarayana Rao, J. -
(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment of our learned brother, Krishnaswami Nayudu J. in C. M. A. No. 625 of 1949. The appeal raises an interesting question relating to the applicability of Section 9-A, Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (Act 4 of 1938) introduced by the amending Act No. 23 of 1948. One Ramachandra Aiyar obtained a usufructuary mortgage from the owner of the property, one Doraiswami Aiyar, under Ex. A.3 dated 15-3-1925 under which an amount of Rs. 3675 was advanced as a loan. The period fixed for redemption of the mortgage was five years. On the same date, there was a lease back, Ex. A. 5, by the mortgagee to the mortgagor of the properties. Under this lease, the mortgagor agreed to pay a rent of Rs. 275 per annum for a period of five years. On 21-7-1927 the mortgagee filed O. S. No. 563 of 1927, District Munsif's Court, Villupuram, for arrears of lease amounts and for recovery of possession of the property as the lessee defaulted in payment of rent.
(2.) The suit however did not proceed to trial, and was compromised under Ex. A.4 dated 9th May 1928. It was provided under the compromise that the mortgagor should pay the arrears of the lease amount by 15-10-1928, and that the lease arrangement should continue till the expiry of the lease on 15-3-1930. The compromise further provided that if there was default in payment of the rent the decree-holder should be entitled to possession of the property in execution of the compromise decree. After the expiry of the lease period, the mortgagee was successful in obtaining possession of the wet lands, but for obtaining possession of the dry lands he was obliged to file the suit, O. S. No. 571 of 1930 in the District Munsif's Court, Villupuram, wherein he also prayed for arrears of rent. The suit was decreed on 12-11-1930.
(3.) In I. P. No. 16 of 1932 the mortgagor Doraiswami Aiyar was adjudged an insolvent on 5th September 1932, and the property vested in the Official Receiver. The equity of redemption in the property was brought to sale by the Official Receiver, and one Ramanujulu Naidu purchased it for a sum of Rs. 105 on 26-11933. He did not however obtain a sale deed from the Official Receiver. On 30-91947 Chengammal, the wife of Ramanujulu Naidu, sold the property to Sankari Animal, the present appellant, under Ex. A.1. It was realised in 1947 that there was really no legal transference of title from the Official Receiver to Ramanujulu Naidu and therefore from Chengammal to the appellant Sankari Ammal. It was then on 7th March 1949 that Chengammal, the vendor of the appellant, obtained a sale-deed Ex. A.2 from the Official Receiver. Sankari Ammal then filed the application, out of which these proceedings arise, in the District Court, South Arcot under Ss. 19CA) and 8 of Madras Act 4 of 1938 read with Section 9-A of the amending Act for a declaration of the amount due under the usufructuary mortgage dated 15-3-1925.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.