The Chief Justice.-This matter was decided against the appellant in the Courts below on a technicality. When the facts are fully understood, we are of the opinion that there is no reason why the technicality should prevail and that on the merits the decision should be in favour of the appellant.

The first respondent obtained a money-decree against the appellant in the Court of Small Causes, Madras, and in execution proceedings in the City Civil Court attached a house belonging to the appellant. The first respondent holds a mortgage over this property as security for a loan of Rs. 1,000 granted by him to the appellant. The first respondent asked that the property be sold subject to his mortgage. It was sold on this condition on the 27th April, 1944, and was bought by the second respondent, who is the paternal uncle of the first respondent. The amount payable under the money decree was Rs. 217-12-6.

The City Civil Court closed for the summer vacation on the 1st May, 1944, that is, three days after the sale. It reopened on the 1st July, 1944, which was a Saturday and a bank holiday. We have ascertained that it is the practice of the City Civil Court Judge to sit for a short time on the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document