TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 973X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty Dhanam viz., the mortgagor filed as suit in O.S. No. - 533 of 1975 for redemption of the mortgage, wherein a preliminary decree was passed on 16.11.1976. She deposited a sum of ₹ 212.75 into Court pursuant to the preliminary decree. After passing of the preliminary decree, she sold the property in favour of one Ramaswamy, who is the 2nd respondent herein. But inspite of her having sold the property in favour of Ramaswamy, she pursued the matter by filing application in I.A. No. 99 of 1979 for passing of final decree pursuant to the preliminary decree obtained by her and a final decree was passed. At that time, Ramaswamy filed E.P.NO. 430 of 1980 straight away. The right of Ramasamy, the subsequent purchaser to file the E.P. was que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the appeal, and consequently, this second appeal has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there cannot be two final decrees in a mortgage suit. I am not persuaded to accept this argument Order 34 of the Code which relates to mortgage does not prohibit the passing of more man one final decree. Order 31, Rule 7 provides for passing of preliminary decree while Order 31, Rule 8 of the Code provides for passing of final decree in redemption. Admittedly, as on date, the defendants viz., the mortgagees have not complied with the provisions of the preliminary decree. The documents of title have not been handed over. Legal discharge of debt has not been effected. Therefore, on the date when the purchaser Ramaswamy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recognised. I am unable to agree. The proper procedure for the revision petitioners was to have him impleaded as a party to the final decree proceedings. Not having done so, there is no question of recognising his interest by virtue of the sale. Certainly if it is permissible in law, it is open to the petitioner to seek an amendment of the final decree on the basis of the present sale. Ofcourse, the assignee decree holder did not file any application for amendment but filed an application to implead him as party in the final decree proceeding, which was allowed. The applications were allowed after contest, But, as against the same, no revision or appeal was preferred by the contesting parties. 5. In this connection, it is necessary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the nature of final decree proceeding has been taken by the assignee decree holder, who claims from the plaintiff, the decree holder. The Supreme Court has held in the decision reported in C. Subbarayudu v. Brahmanandam, 1959 SCA 129 that this Section was introduced in the Code of 1908 with the object of facilitating the exercise of rights by persons in whom they come to be vested by devolution or assignment and that, being a beneficent provision, it should be construed liberally and so as to advance justice, and not in a restricted or technical sense. Therefore, one has to give effect to the object behind enacting Section 146 of the Code. That is what the courts below have done by empowering the assignee decree holder to come on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
