N MOHAMAD SHAMVEEL Vs. CHELAMBUKARA ABDUL GAFOOR SAHIB AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the point raised in this Revision Petition lies within a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out a few facts leading thereto. One Gaffoor Saheb became entitled to the property comprising of a cinema theatre and land appurtenant thereto. It had originally belonged to his deceased wife. On her death, Gaffoor Sahib became entitled to a fourth share and their son to three-fourths share. The son also having died, Gaffoor claims to have become the sole owner of the property. This property had been leased out by the original owner to three person including Gaffoor himself. Of the two other joint lessees, one died and under the circumstances stated, the surviving lessee became the sole successor-in-interest of the lease. It may be mentioned that the lease was for the period 1936 to 1946 and apparently the lessee is holding over.

(2.) Gaffoor Sahib filed a petition for the eviction of the lessee. This was O.P. No. 37 of 1958 on the file of the District Munsif, Tirupathur. During the pendency of this proceeding, the surviving lessee was adjudicated insolvent and the Official Assignee, was brought on record. After hearing, an order of eviction was made. This order was passed on 5th November, 1959.

(3.) The Official Assignee purported to bring to sale the right, title and interest of the insolvent in the property in question. The sale was conducted on the 14th October, 1959, and the sale notification specifically mentioned that the purchaser at the auction will be fixed with notice of the eviction proceedings and the sale will be subject to the same. One Mohamed Shamveel, the present petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition, appears to have purchased the property and the sale was confirmed on 9th November, 1959. It will be noticed that by the date this Shamveel obtained any right in the property, the order for eviction of his predecessor-in-interest had already been made. Under these circumstances, this Shamveel, claiming to be a person aggrieved, filed an appeal against the order of eviction. The learned Subordinate Judge at Vellore held that Shamveel was not a person aggrieved within the meaning of the section and dismissed his petition. A Revision Petition against this order was carried to the District Judge of North Arcot, who concurred in the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge and dismissed it. It is against that order that the present Revision Petition has been filed.