sale does not become absolute or irrevocable merely on passing an order confirming sale under Order 21, Rule 92, but it would attain finality on disposal of appeal if filed against an order refusing to set aside sale
Citation
CDJ 2018 MHC 5729
Arunachalathammal @ chellammal and others vs Balasubramaniam (died) and others
Head Note
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 –Section 100 – Second Appeal – Appeal against second respondent for recovering amount with interest – Suit filed for enforcement of exparte Decree– Decree holder passed away and legal heirs came on record in execution petition – Appellants contended that property in question had been settled in favour by judgment debtor – Judgment debtor raised objection against property attached and subsequently brought to sale – Hence this Appeal
Court Held – Appellants applied for raising attachment dismissed by executing court – Auction was conducted – Therefore proceedings filed by appellants for raising attachment on fact that auction was concluded and sale certificate was issued in favour of third respondent in meanwhile cannot be decisive of matter – Said amount cannot really be sufficient appellants made a statement that offer can be further improved and that he would be prepare to pay amount in all claims of auction purchaser –Claim petition filed by appellants was dismissed and same was also affirmed by first appellate court and matter has not attained finality – Rights acquired by auction purchaser can only be said to nebulous – If an appeal was pending against an order refusing to set aside sale confirmation and issuance of Sale Certificate would be in nebulous state – It was further held that sale does not become absolute or irrevocable merely on passing an order confirming sale under Order 21, Rule 92, but it would attain finality on disposal of appeal if filed against an order refusing to set aside sale – Second Appeal allowed.
Para 9,10,13
Cases Referred :
2006 (3) CTC 180 (Balakrishnan vs. Malaiyandi Konar)
Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddi v. Pujari Padmavathamma, AIR 1977 SC 1789
Ambati Narasayya v. M. Subba Rao and Anr., 1989 Suppl. (2) SCC 693
S. Mariyappa (Dead) v Siddappa and anr., 2004(3) CTC 671 : 2005 910) SCC 235.
S.S. Dayananda v. K.S. Nagesh Rao and others., 1997 (4) SCC 451
Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand and Rajinder Singh, 1994(1) SCC 131.”
(2015) 2 SCC 46 (Guttikonda Venkataramaiah vs. Godavarthy Venkateswarlu and another
AIR 2000 SC 1148 (Kharaiti Lal v. Raminder Kaur)
2006 (3) CTC 180 (Balakrishnan vs. Malaiyandi Konar)
Comparative Citation:
2018 (6) CTC 544,
Court Held – Appellants applied for raising attachment dismissed by executing court – Auction was conducted – Therefore proceedings filed by appellants for raising attachment on fact that auction was concluded and sale certificate was issued in favour of third respondent in meanwhile cannot be decisive of matter – Said amount cannot really be sufficient appellants made a statement that offer can be further improved and that he would be prepare to pay amount in all claims of auction purchaser –Claim petition filed by appellants was dismissed and same was also affirmed by first appellate court and matter has not attained finality – Rights acquired by auction purchaser can only be said to nebulous – If an appeal was pending against an order refusing to set aside sale confirmation and issuance of Sale Certificate would be in nebulous state – It was further held that sale does not become absolute or irrevocable merely on passing an order confirming sale under Order 21, Rule 92, but it would attain finality on disposal of appeal if filed against an order refusing to set aside sale – Second Appeal allowed.
Para 9,10,13
Cases Referred :
2006 (3) CTC 180 (Balakrishnan vs. Malaiyandi Konar)
Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddi v. Pujari Padmavathamma, AIR 1977 SC 1789
Ambati Narasayya v. M. Subba Rao and Anr., 1989 Suppl. (2) SCC 693
S. Mariyappa (Dead) v Siddappa and anr., 2004(3) CTC 671 : 2005 910) SCC 235.
S.S. Dayananda v. K.S. Nagesh Rao and others., 1997 (4) SCC 451
Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand and Rajinder Singh, 1994(1) SCC 131.”
(2015) 2 SCC 46 (Guttikonda Venkataramaiah vs. Godavarthy Venkateswarlu and another
AIR 2000 SC 1148 (Kharaiti Lal v. Raminder Kaur)
2006 (3) CTC 180 (Balakrishnan vs. Malaiyandi Konar)
Comparative Citation:
2018 (6) CTC 544,
Comments
Post a Comment