ARUMUGHA GOUNDER Vs. KANNAMMAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KANNAMMAL obtained a decree against Arumugha Gounder in a suit on a promissory note in O.S. No. 977 of 1967 on the file of the District Munsif of Tiruvannamalai. The decree was passed on 21st February, 1968 for Rs. 2,158 -00 with further interest and costs. The decree -holder levied execution by proceeding against the immovable property of the judgment -debtor. The property was brought to sale on 13th June, 1973. One Shanmugham purchased it in the Court -auction for Rs. 1,751. Meanwhile, the judgment debtor had paid sums of money from time to time towards the decree, amounting in all to Rs. 2,100. The sale in favour of the auction -purchaser was yet to be confirmed, and at that stage, the judgment -debtor filed two applications before the District Munsif's Court, Tiruvannamalai. I.A. No. 1902 of 1973 was an application filed under Section 19 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act IV of 1938)?s amended by Act VIII of 1973 for scaling down the debt and for amendment of the decree. He also filed another application under Section 23 -C of the same Act, as amended by Act VIII of 1973 for setting aside the sale in favour of the auction -purchaser. This application under Section 23 -C was not numbered, but was dismissed by the learned District Munsif. The reason for dismissal will be clear by what the learned District Munsif did with reference to I.A. No. 1902 of 1973 filed by the judgment -debtor for amendment of the decree. The learned District Munsif held that the application for amendment of the decree did not lie because at that time there was no decree to be amended, the decree having been executed and having culminated in the sale of the judgment -debtors property. According to the learned District Munsif, the decree merged in the Court -auction sale. In this view, he dismissed I.A. No. 1902 of 1973. As for the other application filed under Section 23 -C, the learned District Munsif held that the application did not lie under the section.

(2.) AGAINST both the orders, the judgment -debtor appealed to the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, who, however, confirmed the decision of the Court below. The judgment -debtor now carries both the matters in further appeals before this Court.

(3.) AS for the other appeal, C.M.S.A. No. 183 of 1974 Mr. Srinivasan submits that both the Courts below were in error in holding that the judgment -debtor was rot entitled under the law to ask for sealing down of the debt and for amendment of the decree under Section 19 of Act IV of 1938 as amended by Act VIII of 1973. His contention was that the Courts below were wrong in their notion that an execution sale has the effect in law of extinguishing the decree. According to learned Counsel, a decree would be kicking and alive so long as full satisfaction has not been entered. He relied on an earlier decision of this Court reported in Muthuswamy Pillar v. Jaganadha Reddi : AIR 1929 Mad 830 . for the general proposition that a decree can be amended to long as there is something in the decree to operate upon. In the particular case cited by the learned Counsel not only was there an execution of the decree, but even full satisfaction had been entered after levying prosecution. Even in such a case, it was held that it was no bar to an amendment of the decree.