Skip to content


Ammalu Alias Pachiammal Vs. Govindu Pillai and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtChennai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 2164 of 1946
Judge
Reported inAIR1950Mad609
ActsCo-operative Societies Act, 1912 - Sections 43(1)
AppellantAmmalu Alias Pachiammal
RespondentGovindu Pillai and anr.
Appellant AdvocateT.L. Venkatarama Iyer, Adv.
Respondent AdvocatePais, ;Lobo and ;Alvares, Advs.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases Referred and Jagannath v. Baldeo
Excerpt:
- - it may be that as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, cases like, velan v......rao, j.1. in this second appeal, the short question for decision is whether in the absence of a sale certificate the title to the suit property vested in the plaintiff's vendor. the sale was in execution of an award obtained by a co-operative society against defendant 1. having purchased the property, the society sold it to the plaintiff, who has instituted this suit in ejectment. the defence is that for want of a sale certificate no title ever accrued to the society which could accordingly pass none to the plain-tiff. 2. the decisions against the appellant relied on by the courts below are velan v. kumarasami, 11 mad. 296 and jagannath v. baldeo, 5 all. 305 : 1883 a. w. n. 48, which it is contended by his learned counsel are cases of sales under the code of civil procedure which are.....
Judgment:

Raghava Rao, J.

1. In this second appeal, the short question for decision is whether in the absence of a sale certificate the title to the suit property vested in the plaintiff's vendor. The sale was in execution of an award obtained by a co-operative society against defendant 1. Having purchased the property, the society sold it to the plaintiff, who has instituted this suit in ejectment. The defence is that for want of a sale certificate no title ever accrued to the society which could accordingly pass none to the plain-tiff.

2. The decisions against the appellant relied on by the Courts below are Velan v. Kumarasami, 11 Mad. 296 and Jagannath v. Baldeo, 5 ALL. 305 : 1883 A. W. N. 48, which it is contended by his learned counsel are cases of sales under the Code of Civil Procedure which are inapplicable to a sale under the Co-operative Societies Act. It is further contended by him that Rule 10, Sub-rule (5) of the rules framed under the Act enjoins the issue of a sale certificate which is to operate as conclusive-evidence of the fact of the purchase. So it is said there is no title in the plaintiff for want of such a certificate. My attention has been drawn to Section 38(5), Madras Revenue Recovery Act which contains language almost verbatim et literatim identical with that of the rule now under consideration. But no case has been cited under that Act or the Act with which we are concerned here, which has held that the sale certificate is the sine qua non of the accrual of title to the purchaser or shall operate as the only evidence of the fact of the execution sale and purchase or the title created by the sale on its confirmation. It is contended that the sale certificate is a document of title which ought not to be lightly regarded or loosely construed and that such is the pronouncement of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Ramabadra Naidu v. Kadiraiyasami Naieker, 44 Mad. 483 : A. I. R. 1922 P. C. 252. That may be; but we are not concerned here with the construction of an execution sale certificate which has been issued, but with the question whether such a certificate is an indispensable condition prerequisite for accrual of title in the case of a sale under the Co-operative Societies Act. It may be that as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, cases like, Velan v. Kumaraswami, 11 Mad. 296 and Jagannath v. Baldeo, 5 ALL. 305 : 1883 A. W. N. 48 are not to the point here, as there is no question of an execution sale here under the Code of Civil Procedure. But that does not answer the question which arises here for determination.

3. My attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the respondent to Karuppa, v. Vasudevan, 6 Mad. 148, which has held that non-compliance by the Collector with the direction of Sections 38 and 39, Revenue Recovery Act does not invalidate the title of the purchaser. The decision is in point by way of analogy.

4. I bold that there is no substance in the second appeal and accordingly dismiss it with costs. No leave.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //