Subba Rao, J.-The main questions raised are common to both these appeals. Tor convenience of reference, we shall adopt the ranks given to the parties in O.S.No. 19 of 1939 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, out of which the Second Appeal arises.

Naduppadugai Melpathi, in which the plaint schedule lands are situated, is one of the 199 villages forming part of the property of the Raja of Tanjore. In 1799 the then Raja agreed to code the collection of the revenues and the administration of justice to the East India Company. But he continued to be in possession till his death. On his death the above 199 villages were taken possession of by the Crown in 1856 by an “act of State”. Some years later, in 1862, these 199 villages, were granted to the heirs of the late Raja. In respect of the Tanjore Palace Estate an interpleader suit was filed, being O.S. No. 3 of 1919 on the file of the District Court. The suit village along with others was allotted under the final decree for partition to Vasudeva Sahib burdened with a charge for a sum of Rs. 30,000. On 29th December, 1925, Vasudeva Sahib leased the property to one Nallappa Odayar who is claimed by the plaintiffs to be their benamidar. Vasudeva Sahib sold the village among others to one Subramania Chetty under a sale deed, dated 12th March, 1928. On 3rd June, 1929, Subramania Chetty leased it to plaintiffs 2 to 5 and another Arumuga for three years. On 2nd July, 1930, Vasudeva filed LP. No. 10 of 1930 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge for adjudication and he was adjudicated an insolvent on 27th October, 1930. On 29th August, 1932, the plaintiff executed another lease deed in respect of the suit lands in favour of Subramania Chetty for a period of seven years. The Official Receiver in whom the estate of Vasudeva vested filed O.P. No. 261 of 1933 on the file of the Subordinate Judge on 21st November, 1933, for setting aside the sale effected by the insolvent in favour of Subramania Chetty. To that application the plaintiffs were not made parties. On 28th August, 1936, the Subordinate Judge set aside the alienation on the ground that Subramania Chetty was not a bona fide purchaser for full consideration. Out of the total consideration of one lakh it was found that only Rs. 27,916-12-3 represented true debts and to that extent Subramania Chetty was allowed to rank as a simple creditor. Subramania filed an appeal to the District Court against the said order, being C.M.A. No. 43 of 1936. By an order, dated 14th April, 1938, the learned District Judge confirmed the order of the Subordinate Judge. Pending that appeal the plaintiffs executed another lease deed, dated 10th November, 1937, in favour of Subramania for a period of ten years. A revision petition filed in the High Court against the order of the District Judge was dismissed. In execution of the charge-decree in O.S. No. 3 of 1919 the suit village along with others were brought to sale and purchased by the first defendant on 23rd December, 1938. The sale was confirmed on 28th June, 1939. Before the first defendant took delivery of possession, the plaintiffs filed the suit O.S. No. 19 of 1939 for a declaration of their occupancy rights in the suit lands and for a permanent injunction against the first defendant from interfering with their possession. That suit was dismissed on nth November, 1940, on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Court, being A.S. No. 1 of 1941. Pending that appeal, the first defendant took delivery through Court on 14th December, 1940. The plaintiffs filed E.A. No. 30 of 1941 for redelivery of the lands under Older 21, rules 100 and 101, Civil Procedure Code; but the said execution application was dismissed. They filed O.S. No. 28 of 1942 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, for setting aside that order. That suit was dismissed by the learned Judge on the ground that it was not maintainable

Click Here to Read the rest of this document