Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Karaka Somulu - Appellant
Versus
Reddi Appalanaidu - Respondent
Decided On : 11-26-57
ESTATES ABOLITION ACT - SECTIONS 3, 3A - ORDER 22 RULE 10 CPC - ASSIGNMENT, CREATION OR DEVOLUTION OF INTEREST - STATUTORY TRANSFER OF INTEREST - MORTGAGE - REDEMPTION - PROFITS - ACCOUNTING - TRESPASSERS OR MORTGAGEES OR TRUSTEES.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed suits for redemption and possession of mortgaged properties. The defendants contended that the documents executed in favor of the plaintiffs' assignors were not mortgages but leases and that they had acquired occupancy rights in the said lands. The trial court dismissed the suits, while the lower Appellate court decreed the suits. The defendants appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the documents were mortgages and that the debts due under the said documents were fully discharged. The court also held that the statutory transfer of the plaintiffs' interest in the Government under the Estates Abolition Act was an assignment or devolution of interest within the meaning of Order 22, rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code and that the plaintiffs could continue the suits despite the fact that the Government was not brought on record.
Issues: 1. Whether the statutory transfer of the plaintiffs' interest in the Government under the Estates Abolition Act was an assignment or devolution of interest within the meaning of Order 22, rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code? 2. Whether the plaintiffs could continue the suits despite the fact that the Government was not brought on record? 3. Whether the documents executed in favor of the plaintiffs' assignors were mortgages or leases? 4. Whether the debts due under the said documents were fully discharged? 5. Whether the defendant-mortgagees were liable to account for the profits to the plaintiffs from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of the suit properties to them?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the statutory transfer of the plaintiffs' interest in the Government under the Estates Abolition Act was an assignment or devolution of interest within the meaning of Order 22, rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court reasoned that the Act in express terms says that the entire estate stands transferred to the Government and vests in them and that such a statutory transfer is either an assignment or a devolution within the meaning of the said rule. 2. The court held that the plaintiffs could continue the suits despite the fact that the Government was not brought on record. The court reasoned that Order 22, rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code is an enabling provision, whereunder the transferee may come on record and continue the suit and that the statutory transfer of interest under the provisions of the Act is an assignment or devolution of interest, within the meaning of that provision. 3. The court held that the documents executed in favor of the plaintiffs' assignors were mortgages. The court reasoned that the documents contained recitals of a debt carrying interest, the relation of creditor and debtor between the parties, and the mode of discharge of the debt. 4. The court held that the debts due under the said documents were fully discharged. The court reasoned that the debts were scaled down under section 9-A of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act on the basis that the documents were mortgages and that the order scaling down the debts was made between the parties herein and operated as res judicata in the present proceedings. 5. The court held that the defendant-mortgagees were liable to account for the profits to the plaintiffs from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of the suit properties to them. The court reasoned that the defendant-mortgagees continued to be in possession after the statutory discharge of the debts and that they would certainly be liable to account for the profits to the plaintiffs.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals with costs and allowed the cross objections without costs.
( 1 ) THE main question in the two appeals relates to the impact of the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act (Act XXVI of 1948-hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the right of the plaintiffs to maintain the suits for redemption and possession.
( 2 ) THE facts lie in a small compass. The plaintiffs in O. S. Nos. 529 and 530 of 1949 are the same. The father of defendants 3 and 4 in O. S. No. 529 of 1949 (D. M. C. Vizianagaram) executed a usufructuary mortgage bond in respect of 50 cents of land in favour of defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiffs father purchased the equity of redemption by a sale-deed dated 21st February, 1920 from defendants 3 and 4 and their father. The father of defendants 5 and 6 in O. S. No. 530 of 1949 (who are defendants 3 and 4 in O. S. No. 529 of 1949) mortgaged an extent of 2 acres in favour of defendants 1 to 4. The plaintiff s father took an assignment of the equity of redemption of this mortgage also. Both the suits were filed for redemption and for possession of the mortgaged properties. The defendants inter alia contended that the documents executed in favour of the plaintiffs assignors were not mortgages but only leases and, therefore, they had acquired occupancy rights in the said lands. Both the Courts found that the two documents (Exhibits A-8 and A-9) were mortgages, that the debts due under the said documents were fully discharged and that, therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to possession. The contesting defendants also raised the plea that, by reason of the provisions of the Act, the estate of the plaintiffs vested in the Government and, therefore, the plaintiff had no longer any interest in the said estate to enable them to continue the suits. The first Court accepted this plea and dismissed the suits, while the lower Appellate court rejected the plea and decreed the suits. Hence, the second appeals.
( 3 ) MR. Dikshitulu, the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants contends that, under the Act, the suit properties vested in the Government, and therefore, the plaintiffs could not continue the suits. The suits were filed on 10th December, 1949 and the Act came into force on 19th April, 1949. The Government notified the estate wherein the suit properties are situated, under section 3 of the Act, on and January, 1951. It is, therefore, clear that, on the date when the suits were filed, the plaintiffs had, admittedly, a subsisting interest in the properties mortgaged. Under section 3 of the Act, after the notified date, the entire estate stood transferred to the Government and vested in them. The question is whether the subsequent statutory transfer of the estate and the vesting of the same in the Government had the effect of non-suiting the plaintiffs. Such a transfer does not abate the suits. Order 22, rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code which governs a situation similar to that which has arisen in this case reads thus :" (1) In other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved ".
( 4 ) IT is not disputed that this provision is an enabling one ; and, if it applies) the suits do not become defective by an assignment pendents lite, though the successor in interest may, with the leave of the Court, continue the suits. But, what is contended is that the vesting of the interest of the plaintiffs in the Government is not comprehended by any of the three terms used in the rule, viz " assignmerit, creation or devolution ". Section 3 (A) of the Act in express terms says that the entire estate stands transferred to the Government and vests in them. Such a statutory transfer is either an assignment or a devolution within the meaning of the said rule. By the operation of the statute, the interest of the plaintiffs was transferred to the Government and, therefore, the plaintiff s interest devolves, by
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
