Dhandapani Udayar vs Angammal and Another

Ramaswami, J.—There was a compromise decree for maintenance obtained by one Angammal which was a charge created on certain properties. The decree holder on maintenance not being paid, brought the properties charged, to sale and a third party by name Adimoola Udayar became the auction purchaser. Thereupon the judgment debtor deposited the purchase price with five percent of the solatium and asked for setting aside of the sale. Both the learned District Munsif of Vriddhachalam and the District Judge of South Arcot declined to do so on the ground that O. 34 , R. 5, C.P.C., will have no application to the facts of the case. This point is concluded by authority. Vide the decision in N. Sarraju v. Venkataraju (1964) 2 M.L.J. 192 = 59 L.W. 468, where a Bench of this Court in identical circumstances has held that a decree passed in a maintenance suit is a final decree which entitles the decree holder to proceed directly in execution should the judgment debtor fail to pay the amount due by him and that O. 34 , R- 5, C.P.C., cannot have any application to such a decree. It makes no difference whether the decree is for maintenance passed after contest, or results from a compromise the terms of which have been embodied in the decree of Court.

This appeal wholly devoid of merits is dismissed with costs.