Venkatarama Ayyar, J.- The first defendant is the appellant before us. The facts leading to this litigation are these. The second defendant and his sons, defendants 3 and 4, executed two mortgages in favour of the first defendant each for Rs. 7,000, one on 13th August, 1932 and the other on 14th August, 1932 Exhibits D-17 and D-18. The first defendant filed O.S. No. 14 of 1937 on the file of the SubCourt, Trichinopoly, for recovering the amounts due under those two mortgages. He also applied for the appointment of a Receiver on the allegation that the security was insufficient. On 21st June, 1937, he was appointed Receiver and he took possession of the properties sometime in November or December 1937. Meantime, a preliminary decree was passed on 21st June, 1937 and a final decree on 18th January, 1938. In execution of this decree, the mortgaged-properties were brought to sale. The first defendant applied in E.A. No. 378 of 1940 for permission to bid at the auction and set off the amount due to him and this was granted on 12th July, 1940. The sale was actually held on 4th December, 1940 and the first defendant became the purchaser for a sum of Rs. 15,400. The sale was duly confirmed and he was discharged from receivership. Then the fifth defendant applied in E.A. No. 14 of 1941 for setting aside the sale under Order XXI, rule 90 and section 47, Civil Procedure Code. It may be mentioned that no objection was taken that the purchase by the first defendant on 4th December, 1940, was bad for want of permission of the Court. This petition was dismissed on the ground that no security was furnished. The present suit was filed on 29th April, 1944. The plaintiff is the son of the third defendant and he was born sometime in 1938. The object of the suit is to get rid of the mortgage-decree and the sale. The allegations in the plaint are of the usual kind in this class of suits. It is alleged that the mortgage bonds were not supported by consideration, that the third defendant, the father, was leading an immoral life and that therefore the debts were illegal and immoral and not binding on the plaintiff. It is further stated that the proceedings in O.S. No. 14 of 1937 are not binding on the plaintiff because the interests of the joint family were not properly safeguarded by the second defendant, the manager. Then it is alleged that the execution sale was vitiated by several irregularities and that the price of Rs. 15,400 was too low. The prayer is that ignoring the decree and the sale, the plaintiff should be given his share in the property. The first defendant denied these allegations. The other defendants who are members of the family supported the plaintiff. Obviously they are behind the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge held that the mortgage bonds were fully supported by consideration, that the allegations about immorality were baseless, that the second defendant, the manager, duly and adequately represented the entire joint family, that there were no irregularities in the conduct of the sale and he accordingly held that the decree and the sale were all binding on all the members of the family including the plaintiff.

Apart from the above allegations, the plaintiff also stated that the first defendant purchased the property without getting the sanction of the Court as he was bound to do as a Receiver and for want of that sanction, the sale was illegal and void. Dealing, with this question, the Subordinate Judge reviewed the authorities and held that the sale was not a nullity and that it was only voidable at the instance of the members of the family. He further held that the sale having been confirmed without any steps being taken by any members of the family for having it set aside, the order of confirmation having been made under Order XXI, rule 92 (3), neither the plaintiff nor the other members of the family were entitled to attack the sale. On these findings, the suit should have been dismissed. But the Subordinate Judge took up a n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document