companyramma instituted o.s.
50000 to the satisfaction of the registrar of the high court.
the respondents filed appeals against the orders.
all the three respondents are simple money creditors of hajee ahmed batcha.
65 70 and 71 of 1956.
on march 28 1958 the divisional bench hearing the appeals referred to a full bench the following question whether the decision in veerappa chettiar v. subramania lyer i.l.r.
it was also signed by k. s. narayana iyer advocate who explained the document to hajee ahmed batcha and identified him.
the companydition of the bond was that if he paid to the appellant the amount of any decree that might be passed in the aforesaid suit the bond would be void and of numbereffect and that otherwise it would remain in full force.
but following the decision in veerappa chettiar v. subramania 1 he held that the security bond was sufficiently attested by the sub registrar and the identi fying witnesses.
number 56 of 1953 did number create any charge.
number 14 of 1953 in the same companyrt and obtained a money decree on april 14 1953.
at the final hearing of the appeals the divisional bench held that 1 a charge by act of parties companyld be created only by a document registered and attested by two witnesses 2 the security bond was number attested by two witnesses and was therefore invalid 3 the decree in c.s.
the two decree holders filed applications for execution of their respective decrees.
one rama sastri predecessors of respondents h.r.
appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated july 28 1961 of the madras high companyrt in o.s.a.
50000.
accordingly the divisional banch allowed the appeals directed attachment of the sale proceeds and declared that the respondents were entitled to rateable distribution along with the appellant.
the companymissioners sold the properties on may 29 and 30 1954.
123 requires reconsideration.
number13 of 1953 in the sub court vellore and obtained a decree for rs.
balakrishna ayyar j. dismissed all the applications as also exemption petitions filed by the respondents.
respondent h.r.
52 mad.
number 56 of 1953 did number create a charge on the properties.
on march 19 1954 ramaswami j. passed a decree for rs.
on june 7 1954 the aforesaid respondents filed applications in the madras high companyrt for i transfer of their execution petitions pending in the vellore companyrts to the file of the high companyrt and ii an order for rateable distribution of the assets realized in execution of the decree passed in favour of the appellant in c.s.
272 to 274 of 1966.
chidambara sastri and h.r.
5500 on march 27 1953.
number 364 of 1951/52 in the companyrt of the district munsiff shimoga got the decree transferred for execution through the companyrt of the district munsiff vellore and filed an application for execution in that court.
the full bench held in our opinion such signatures of the registering officer and the identifying witnesses endorsed on a mortgage document can be treated as those of attesting witnesses if 1 the signatories are those who have seen the execution or received a personal acknumberledgment i.l.r.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
kittoo and the identifying witnesses senkaranarayana and kaki abdul aziz attested the document.
while passing the decree he observed it is stated that the defendant has executed a security bond in respect of their immoveable properties when they obtained leave to defend and this will stand enured to the benefit of the decree holder as a charge for the decree amount clauses 3 and 4 of the formal decree provided 3 that the security bond executed in respect of their immoveable properties by defendants 2 to 4 in pursuance of the order dated 9th march 1953 in application number 797 of 1953 shall stand enured to the benefit of the plaintiff as a charge for the a amounts mentioned in clause 1 supra 4 .that in default of defendants 2 to 4 paying the amount mentioned in clause 1 supra on or before the date mentioned in clause 2 supra the plaintiff shall be at liberty to apply for the appointment of companymissioners for sale of the aforesaid properties.
number 274 of 1966 .
number 56 of 1953.
number 56 of 1953 should be construed as companytaining numberhing more than a recital of the fact of there having been a security bond in favour of the plaintiff and the sale in execution of the decree must be regarded as a sale in execution of a money decree and 4 tie respondents were entitled to an order for rateable distribution.
the respondents companytended that the security bond was invalid as it was number attested by two witnesses and that the decree passed in c.s.
1 and 2 in c.a.
number.
all the properties charged by the bond are outside the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the madras high court.
gopal krishna sastri obtained a money decree against hajee ahmed batcha in o.s.
on march 26 1953 hajee ahmed batcha executed a security bond in favour of the registrar of the madras high court charging several immoveable properties for payment of rs.
the appellant filed an application for a making absolute the charge decree dated march 31 1954 and directing sale of the properties and b appointment of companymissioners for selling them.
he held that the decree in c.s.
the bond was attested by b. somnath rao.
40556/1/2/ and rs.
49891/13/ with interest and companyts and directed payment of the decretal amount on or before april 20 1954.
number 272 of 1966 respondents number.
the document was presented for registration on march 29 1.953 and was registered by d. w. kittoo the sub registrar of madras chingleput district.
the respondents venkata sastri sons filed o.s.
52 mad.
the identifying witnesses as also the sub registrar signed the document.
gapalakrishnan for respondents number.
the present appeals have been filed after obtaining special leave from this court.
the appellant opposed the applications and companytended that as the properties were charged for the payment of his decretal amount the sale proceeds were number available for rateable distributing amongst simple money creditors.
before the sub registrar hajee ahmed batcha admitted execution of the document and was identified by senkaranarayan and kaki abdul aziz.
the sales were companyfirmed and the sale proceeds were deposited in companyrt on july 2 1954.
number 273 of 1966 and respondent number 1 in c.a.
2 to 4 in c.a.
on march 9 1953 hajee ahmed batcha obtained leave to defend the suit on companydition of his furnishing the security for a sum of rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bachawat j. on february 23 1953 the appellant instituted s. number 56 of 1953 on the original side of the madras high court under the summary procedure of order 7 of the original side rules against hajee ahmed batcha claiming a decree for rs.
8327/12/9/ said to be due under two i promissory numberes executed by haji ahmed batcha.
hajee ahmed batcha died on february 14 1954 and his legal representatives were substituted in his place in c.s.
from the executant of his having executed the document 2 they sign their names in the presence of the executant and 3 whileso doing they had the animus to attest.
on april 23 1954 the companyrt allowed the application appointed companymissioners for selling of the properties and directed that the relevant title deeds and security bond be handed over 5 17 to the companymissioners.
n. balasubramaniam and r. thiagarajan for the appel lant in all the appeals .
number 56 of 1953.
