t ¥ f In the High Court of Judicature of Travancore-Cochin at Ernakulam Present -X The Hon'ble Justice Shri I. Sankaran and The Hon'ble Justice Shr1 M. S, Menon. A.S. No. 40 of 1954. o.s.No.54/1122 on the file of the Qu1lon District Court. Appellant: (Addl.Defendants 29 & 30). 1. Karth1yayan1 Aroma Jenaki Amme of Mavuvila Veedu, Pupnukkannoo. Cherry, Kottamkara Pakuthy, Quilon. 2. Kunjan Pillai Bhaskaran Pillai of do. By Advocate Soi General Shr1 Mathew Muricken and Advocate Shri V.Subramanian Moothathu. Respondent. (Plaintiff). Usanaru Mytheen Kunju of Kottavilathekkekuzhivila Veedu, Pu;nu- P kannoor Cherry, Kottamkara Pakutny. ~ ~ This appeal having been finally heard on 0l21954 the court on the same day delivered the following Judgment. Defendants 29 and 30 ho are the heirs of the 1st defendant By Advocate Shri N.Varadaraja Iyengar. are the appellants. ,.--. Plain tiff's suit ts to be reimbursed of ." i .• l ' V ! - the debt due under Ext. decree which was satisfied by the exe- dcl cut1on of the sale,Ext.B deeree in favour of defendants 9 to 24 who are the htirs of the decree-holder 1n Ext.A. The proper- ties covered by Sy.Nos.850 and 826 were the items charged under Ext.A decree. Of these items the property covered by Sy.No.826 was left out from Ext.B sale deed but Sy.No.850 was included in that sale deed. The result was that Sy.No826 was exonerated from liability under Ext.A decree and the liability was fastened on Sy.No.850. ibis item along with other properties was pur- chased by the present plaintiff under Ex,t.c and it was while he was 1n possession 0f Sy.No.850 that the present appellants took delivery of the property on 'Ile strength of Ext.D court sale in O.S.445 of 1107. That court sale was expressly subject to the e 1 it I 'I liability !or the prior charge under Ext.A decree. Blaintiff's predecessor-in-interest had paid off this charge by the executinn of the sale deed Ext.B and plaintiff has sought to enforce his prior clmrge to that extent. The first defendant or his l.egal. representatives cannot resist this claim, because the sale cer- , tificate Ext.D has expressly reserved this prior charge. That charge could be enforced against both the items jointly and se- verally as per the terms or Ext.A decree. The purchaser under Et.D sale certificate cannot therefore disown liability for that amount so tar as Sy.No.850 1s concerned.. The lower court was therefore right in decreeing the claim put forward on the basis of Ext.A. The defence contention was that the liability was only to the extent of 13,300 fanams. The lower court upheld this contention and plaintiff was given a decree only for this amount. We see no reason to interfere with that decree. 2. The result 1s that this appeal is dismissed with costs. 20th December 1954. (Sd) KoSankaran, Joogeo (sa) /t.s.teo«,)«y. (True copy)' 4±.ecivrer, for Registrar.