A valid, true, and enforceable agreement to sell will prevail over attachment of property - validity not proved - husband of degree holder purchase the property - no bar.
Citation
K. Palanisami Versus R. Gomathi & Others
Head Note
Auction Sale – Validity of – Appellant-petitioner claiming right over property attached had filed application to set aside sale Before that he had filed application to declare that attachment in respect of suit property is illegal and void – Trial Court approving Court auction sale also once again, he dismissed both applications filed by third party petitioner.
Court held – Since petitioner/appellant claim that he is in possession of property, he should have had knowledge of attachment of property – Therefore, he ought to have filed application to questioning sale before date on which proclamation of sale was drawn up, which he did not do so – It could be said that the petition itself is barred – Even assuming that he had no knowledge, petition to set aside sale could be maintained on ground of irregularity or fraud, etc. – there is no evidence indicating, how publications were not effected as per procedure, what are frauds said to have been committed, etc – In view of facts recorded by Courts below, that there was no irregularity in publication or any fraud in conduct of sale, auction purchaser is entitled to have benefits of Court auction sale and same cannot be set aside on any grounds, as rightly held by Courts below – Appeal dismissed.
Case Referred:
Angu Pillai v. Kasiviswanathan Chettiar, 1973 MLJ 334.(Para 16); Vannarakkal K. Sreedharan v. Chandrammath Balakrishnan, 1990 (3) SCC 291..(Para 17).
Comparative Citation:
2005 (1) CTC 585,
Court held – Since petitioner/appellant claim that he is in possession of property, he should have had knowledge of attachment of property – Therefore, he ought to have filed application to questioning sale before date on which proclamation of sale was drawn up, which he did not do so – It could be said that the petition itself is barred – Even assuming that he had no knowledge, petition to set aside sale could be maintained on ground of irregularity or fraud, etc. – there is no evidence indicating, how publications were not effected as per procedure, what are frauds said to have been committed, etc – In view of facts recorded by Courts below, that there was no irregularity in publication or any fraud in conduct of sale, auction purchaser is entitled to have benefits of Court auction sale and same cannot be set aside on any grounds, as rightly held by Courts below – Appeal dismissed.
Case Referred:
Angu Pillai v. Kasiviswanathan Chettiar, 1973 MLJ 334.(Para 16); Vannarakkal K. Sreedharan v. Chandrammath Balakrishnan, 1990 (3) SCC 291..(Para 17).
Comparative Citation:
2005 (1) CTC 585,
Comments
Post a Comment