Skip to content


M.C.T.M. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Rangaswami Tevar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1938Mad232
AppellantM.C.T.M. Chidambaram Chettiar
RespondentRangaswami Tevar and ors.
Excerpt:
- - the case for the plaintiff in that he became the owner of the said village by virtue of a court auction purchase and that the title to the suit property vested in him there under, that the defendants are in occupation of the sites on condition of rendering certain services for the landlord, that they have failed to rander such services and therefore they have forfeited the right to remain on the several sites. he should have seen that these plots had been specifically described in the sale proclamation, and if he has failed to do so, he must suffer. i have now satisfied myself after looking into those documents that the conclusion of the learned district judge was correct......claimed to removal possession of the sites after the removal of the superstructures erected on the suit sites. the court sale was in execution of a mortgage decree obtained by one somasundaram chettiar of devakottah and which was later on assigned to the plaintiff's father.2. the main defence is that the defendants have been in possession of the land for generations, that they have got permanent occupancy right therein, that the suit sites were not comprised in the mortgage, that no title passed to the plaintiff under the court sale and therefore they are not liable to be evicted. one main point in controversy between the parties in both the courts was whether the sites were actually included in the mortgage. the suite sites comprised distinct survey numbers, but the mortgage did not.....
Judgment:

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This batch of second appeals arises out of several suits in ejectment filed by the plaintiff as mirasidar and landholder of the village of Melamarudur against the several defendants who ate in occupation of the sites described in the plaints in the several suits filed against them. The case for the plaintiff in that he became the owner of the said village by virtue of a Court auction purchase and that the title to the suit property vested in him there under, that the defendants are in occupation of the sites on condition of rendering certain services for the landlord, that they have failed to rander such services and therefore they have forfeited the right to remain on the several sites. He therefore claimed to removal possession of the sites after the removal of the superstructures erected on the suit sites. The Court sale was in execution of a mortgage decree obtained by one Somasundaram Chettiar of Devakottah and which was later on assigned to the plaintiff's father.

2. The main defence is that the defendants have been in possession of the land for generations, that they have got permanent occupancy right therein, that the suit sites were not comprised in the mortgage, that no title passed to the plaintiff under the Court sale and therefore they are not liable to be evicted. One main point in controversy between the parties in both the Courts was whether the sites were actually included in the mortgage. The suite sites comprised distinct survey numbers, but the mortgage did not specifically mention the survey numbers and the description of the sites was as jari manais. Both the Courts concurrently found that they were included in the mortgage and that finding has not been challenged in second appeal. The District Munsif negatived all the contentions raised by the defendants and held that they had no right to remain in the land and gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff. But the learned District Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that no title passed to the plaintiff in the Court sale. It is against this decision that these second appeals have been filed. It seems to me that the view taken by the learned Judge is correct and that his judgment will have to prevail. There is no doubt that the mortgagee obtained a decree for sale of the entire mortgaged property including the suite sites. It is also clear that in the execution petition filed after the final decree for sale of the properties, the plaintiff had asked for the sale of the suit sites, but unfortunately, in the sale proclamation, these sites were not mentioned. The property was divided into 18 lots and each lot was described by specific survey numbers and in none of the descriptions of the several1 lots were these jari manais included either by their description as such or by specific reference to their survey numbers. The result is that these jari manais were never put up for sale. No doubt the plaintiff purchased all the 18 plots but it does not affect the question whether the said plots were really sold and the plaintiff obtained title thereto by virtue of the auction purchase. The Court sale certificate did really include the plots, but that cannot confer title. The Court sale certificate is only a formal document confirming what was purchased in the Court auction. The plaintiff can only base his title to the suit property by virtue of his purchase at the Court auction. The defendants who were not parties to execution proceedings are entitled to raise the defence that the plaintiff is not entitled to sue them in ejectment. It may be very unfortunate for the landholder, but he has himself to blame. He should have seen that these plots had been specifically described in the sale proclamation, and if he has failed to do so, he must suffer.

3. I therefore confirm the decision of the learned District Judge and dismiss these second appeals. It must be stated that this point was neither raised in the written statement nor urged before the trial Court, and it was only allowed in the appellate Court. I had some difficulty in coming to the conclusion whether the view of the learned District Judge was correct without the necessary documents on which the said conclusion should be based. I therefore called for the necessary documents, namely the execution application, the sale proclamation and the bidding list. I have now satisfied myself after looking into those documents that the conclusion of the learned District Judge was correct. There, fore in the circumstances, I direct each party to bear his own costs throughout.


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