ORDER :- This is an appeal by the first defendant against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram, granting, at the instance of the plaintiff, an ex parte injunction restraining the appellant from taking delivery of possession of certain properties which she had purchased in court auction in execution of a mortgage decree obtained against the plaintiffs father. Before discussing the questions involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set forth briefly the background in the dispute between the parties. Sundaram Chettiar, the undivided father of Asokan, the plaintiff, who got the ex parte injunction in the court below, purchased a cinema theatre at Rajapalayam. At the time of the purchase he borrowed from one Chockalingam, the husband of the appellant, Mangai Achi, a sum of Rs. 50,000 for making up the sale price. He also mortgaged the theatre for Rs. 50,000 on 19-5-1958 in favour of Chockalingam Chettiar. Subsequently, on 21-7-1959, he granted another mortgage in favour of Chockalingam Chettiar's brother for Rs. 15,000 in respect of the same cinema theatre. This mortgage was subsequently assigned in favour of Chockalingam Chettiar. On 21-11-1960 Sundaram Chettiar granted a third mortgage in favour of Chokkalingam Chettiar for Rs. 85,000. Mangai Achi, the appellant, after obtaining an assignment of the three mortgages in her favour, instituted a suit, O. S. No. 72 of 1961, on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram, on foot of the three mortgages aforementioned. In the plaint in her suit, Mangai Achi alleged that the hypotheca belonged exclusively to Sundaram Chettiar and formed part of his separate properties and that, even assuming that it had been purchased out of the joint family assets of Sundaram Chettiar. the mortgages would be binding on Sundaram Chettiar's sons. In the plaint, she expressly prayed for a decree on the alternative basil that the property belonged to the joint family of which Sundaram Chettiar was the manager. Sundaram Chettiar in his answer admitted the execution of the mortgages and the amounts due thereunder and prayed that he might be permitted to repay the amounts in instalments spread over a period of six years. In paragraph 6 of his written statement he averred that the cinema theatre business started by him was for his own benefit and that the joint family had no concern whatsoever with the business assets (presumably including the hypotheca) or the liabilities of Sundaram Chettiar. He further contended that the cinema business was a new kind of speculative business in which fortunes were made or lost and that it was unfair to foist the mortgage liability upon the other members of his family. Ultimately a preliminary decree was passed on 6-10-1962, for Rs. 1,84,451-13. In execution of the mortgage decree, which was transferred to the Subordinate Judge's court, Sivaganga, the appellant tried to bring the hypotheca to sale. But it is alleged that owing to the obstructive tactics of Sundaram Chettiar, the judgment-debtor, the hypotheca could be sold in auction only on 12-8-1969 at which the appellant herself purchased it for Rs. 2,25,000. The sale was confirmed on 24-12-1969. Sundaram Chettiar instituted proceedings for setting aside the sale on the ground that it was vitiated by material irregularities. His petition was dismissed, and against the order of dismissal he preferred C. M. A. No. 357 of 1971 to this court and this court dismissed the appeal on 18-11-1971. Then the decree-holder applied for delivery of possession in E. A. 141 of 1971. This was opposed by Sundaram Chettiar as well as by the Advocate Receiver who had been appointed during the pendency of the proceedings in the mortgage suit. Those objections were overruled by the trial Court and delivery was ordered. Thereupon Sundaram Chettiar filed C. M. A. 223 of 1972 on the file of this court against the order directing delivery. This appeal came up before Krishnaswamy Reddy, J., who directed the app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document