The Chief Justice.-The plaintiff in O.S. No. 44 of 1946 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor is the appellant. The suit was for a declaration of his title to certain properties described in Schedule A to the plaint and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of some of the items in Schedule A described separately in Schedule B.

The suit properties according to the plaintiff originally belonged to one Megavaram Nayanim Varu, the father of defendants 1 and 2 and the grandfather of defendant 5. One K.L.Narasimhachari obtained a decree in O.S. No. 4s of 1940 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chittoor, against the present defendants 1 and 2 and the father of defendant 5 for the amount due to him under a promissory note executed by Megavaram. That decree was passed on 19th June, 1940. After two applications filed in 1941, E.P. No. 3 of 1942 was filed by the original decree-holder against the father of defendant 5, defendant 1 and defendant 2 who was then a minor represented by his mother as his guardian in which inter alia there was a prayer for attachment of properties belonging to the family including the suit properties. It is not disputed that the suit properties, meaning thereby the right, title and interest of Megavaram’s branch in paimash numbers set out in the schedule, were attached on 29th March, 1942. While this execution petition was pending another application, E.P. No. 149 of 1942, was filed by a person who sought to be brought on record as transferee-decree-holder, viz., Periya Dasappa Mudali. He was eventually brought on record as transferee on 10th December, 1942. On 3rd December, 1942, there was an order calling upon the decree-holders to produce a draft sale proclamation and further time was granted on 17th December, 1942, till 2nd January, 1943. On 2nd January, 1943, the following order was made on the execution petition:

“Attachment kept alive till the decree is fully satisfied. The petitioner may apply for the proclamation and sale of the attached property by means of a fresh petition accompanied with the D.S.P. (Draft sale proclamation).”

On 1st March, 1943, a fresh execution petition (E. P. No. 29 of 1943) was filed by the transferee-decree-holder. In this application also enforcement of the decree was sought against the father of defendant 5, defendant 1 and defendant 2 described as a minor represented by his mother as guardian. This petition prayed for attachment of properties not concerned in the suit and for sale of the suit properties after due proclamation. From the indorsement on this application we find that the respondents were served with the sale notice and on 22nd September, 1943, the Court declared them ex parte and adjourned the proceedings to 27th September, 1943, for settlement of proclamation. Eventually on 30th September, 1943, there was an order directing the property to be sold on 28th December, 1943. The sale was again postponed to 14th March, 1944, on which date the sale was held and the suit properties were purchased by the plaintiff. The sale was duly confirmed and a sale certificate, Ex. P-1, was granted to the plaintiff on 16th January, 1945. The properties were described by paimash number, with extents and with the remark,

“in these properties excluding the one-half share belonging to Manikyam Naidu, that is the brother of Megavaram, the one-half share belonging to the defendants, i.e., the judgment-debtors.”

The property set out in Schedule B is described as Mamidhithota chenu in respect of which also what was sold was the half share of Megavaram. According to the plaintiff in pursuance of this sale certificate he obtained possession of definite parcels of property which belonged to his judgment-debtors. In the Mamidhithota chenu (property set out in Schedule B) he obtained possession of the western half share belonging to his judgment-debtors. The delivery was on 27th March, 1945. The plaintiff alleged that he was in poss

Click Here to Read the rest of this document