Madras High Court
Nallappa Reddi vs Ramalingachi Reddi And Ors. on 25 January, 1897
Equivalent citations: (1897)ILR 20MAD250
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff's sale-deed having been lost, he was entitled to claim that the first defendant should execute a fresh deed of sale and register it, and assuming, as found by the Munsif, that second and third defendants had notice of the sale to the plaintiff, he was further entitled to possession.
2. The cases applicable to this are Nynakka Routhen v. Vavana Mahomed Naina Routhen 5 M.H.C.R. 133 and Nagappa v. Devu I.L.R. H Mad. 55. In Venkatasami v. Kristayya I.L.R. 16 Mad. 341 relied on by the District Judge, the sale-deed had not been lost, and so there could be no claim for specific performance. The District Judge's decision on this point is therefore wrong, and he is requested to find, on the evidence on record upon the issue, whether defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had notice of the sale to the plaintiff; in which case the Munsif's decree will have to be restored, and that of the District Judge reversed. The District Judge is requested to submit his findings within one month from the date of the receipt of this order. Seven days will be allowed for riling objections after the finding has been posted up in this Court.