1970 Supreme(Mad) 333
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.S. Kailasam and K.S. Venkataraman, JJ.
Natarajan
Versus
M/s. Chandmull Amarchand by Power-of-Attorney, K. Milopchand
A.A.O. Nos. 95 and 117 of 1967.
Decided On : 23 October 1970
R. Desikan, for P. Bhaskaran, for Appellant.
V.V. Raghavan, for Respondent No. 1.
Ratio-Jurisdiction to proceed with execution.
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.21, rules 64 and 66 and O.21, rule 90 and section 47 - Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 181 (corresponding to Limitation Act (XXXVI of 1963), Article 137) -Applicability of Order 21, rule 90 and section 47, Civil Procedure Code - Necessity to show substantial injury, when arises-Notice necessary and sale notice not issued - Jurisdiction to proceed with execution.
2. The grounds taken in E. A.Nos. 76 and 109 of 1965 are common and are two-fold: (1) No notice was given to the appellants Natarajan and Keppiammal, though the respondent (decree-holder) knew that J.T. Joghee was not the joint family manager and was living apart from the appellants and was inimical towards them. There was collusion between Joghee and the decree-holder, (iii) The deceased Thippa Gowder led a reckless and immoral life and the debts which resulted in the decree were tainted by immorality.
3. The learned Judge repelled these contentions on a careful analysis of the evidence adduced before him. He found that Joghee was the manager of the joint family and that the debts were not tainted by immorality. He also found that there was no collusion. Mr. R. Desikan and Mr. P. Bhaskaran, the learned Counsel who appeared for the appellants before us, were not able to urge anything to show that the reasoning of the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong on these aspects. There is, however, one other aspect on which they are entitled to succeed. We shall confine ourselves for the present to the sale held on 29th October, 1962 in E.P.No. 494 of 1962. It will be noted that one of the contentions is that no notice of the execution was ever given to them. The reply of the decree-holder is that notice went to the joint family-manager, J.T. Joghee, and that that was sufficient. If, in truth, notice had been properly served on J.T. Joghee, the reply of the the decree-holder would be a sufficient answer to the contention of the appellants. But we find that that is not so. Taking up the first execution petition, E.P. No. 113 of 1960, it was filed for attachment and sale of the immovable properties in the hands of the legal representati