Ramamurti, J. — These two appeals arise out of two suits which were heard and tried together and disposed of by a common judgment by the City Civil Court, Madras, as the subject-matter in dispute and the points in controversy are the same and identical. The suit property involved is door No. 78, Paper Mills Road, Perambur, and the main question in controversy relates to the truth, validity and the legality of the auction sale said to have been held by the auctioneer on behalf of the mortgagee exercising powers under section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Suit O.S. No. 2701 of 1959 has been filed by the three plaintiffs the mortgagors, impeaching the auction sale. The first defendant, Rajeswari Ammal, is the assignee from the original mortgagee Lokambal, the second defendant Chandramani and Co., is the auctioneer, the third defendant Chakrapani Naidu is the successful bidder and purchaser in the auction and the fourth defendant Natesa Mudaliar is a subsequent mortgagee. The other suit, O.S. No. 992 of 1959 has been filed by the auction-purchaser to establish his rights and to recover possession of the property as the mortgagors would not surrender possession of the property. The three mortgagors are the three contesting defendants in this suit. The learned City Civil Judge accepted the contentions of the mortgagors and held that there was really no auction sale on 12th February, 1959. The result was that O.S. No. 2701 of 1959 was decreed as prayed for and O.S. No. 992 of 1959, was dismissed. The auction-purchaser has preferred the Appeal No. 737 of 1963, against the decision dismissing the suit O.S. No. 992 of 1969,and he has also preferred the Appeal No. 132 of 1965, against the decision decreeing the mortgagors’ suit, O.S. No. 2701 of 1959, aforesaid. For purposes of convenience, in the trial Court, the parties were referred to according to their array in O.S. No. 2701 of 1959, (the suit by the mortgagors) and we are adopting the same course in these two appeals. The point for decision lies in a very narrow compass, the only point arising for decision being a pure question of fact., whether any auction was held as a fact on 12th February, 1959, and -whether the third defendant became the highest and succesful bidder. The trial of both the suits has been very protracted and a lot of useless and irrelevant material had been let in the trial of both the suits. In the course of the appeal, we noticed that the oral evidence is unnecessarily voluminous and the result was that the irrelevant portion of the evidence has clouded the relevant portion of the evidence resulting in the learned Judge himself getting involved in a discussion of unnecessary details and irrelevant particulars.

2. The brief facts which led to this litigation may be stated: It is necessary to have a rough idea of the relationship between the parties which is set out in the trees below: The suit property, door No. 78, Paper Mills Road, Perambur, belonged to one Thiruvenkada and plaintiffs 1 to 3 were entitled to the same as reversioners. The plaintiffs, the mortgagors, were obliged to take proceedings in O.S. No. 1443 of 1950 to establish their right to the suit property as reversioners to the estate of Thiruvenkada against Meenakshi and they succeeded in obtaining a decree on 29th March, 1952. Between 1952 to 1956 there were further proceedings in which the mortgagors were obstructed from realising the fruits of the decree obtained by them in O.S. No. 1443 of 1950 and it is only in the beginning of 1957 that the plaintiffs ultimately succeeded in their efforts in establishing then-rights to the suit property as reversioners of Thiruvenkada. There was of course pronounced enmity between the plaintiffs on the one side and Meenakshi (the mother of the first defendant) and Kannayya (the husband of the first defendant) on the other.

3. As early as 1948, the mortgagors had created a mortgage over the suit property and some agricultural lands in favour of one L

Click Here to Read the rest of this document