SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 594

G.T.NANAVATI, K.RAMASWAMY
Seethammal – Appellant
Versus
Senthil Finance – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

  2. In-execution of money decree in O.S. No. 67/87, the property, i.e., 1053 sq. feet of land with built-in house was sold for a sum of Rs. 15,100/- subject to discharge of the mortgage sum of Rs. 40,000/- encumbered on the property. The appellant/judgment-debtor questioned the validity of the sale under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC. The executing Court rejected the same which was confirmed in C.R.P. No. 1895/93 by the impugned order dated September 26,1993 of the High Court of Madras. Thus this appeal.

3. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the sale is in excess of the execution. It is not in dispute that the property sold consists of a built-up house in a portion measuring 1053 sq. ft. The property was originally valued for a sum of Rs. 75,000/-. But subsequently, it was reduced to Rs. 50,000/-. At an auction, it was sold for a mere sum of Rs. 15,100. The upset price was Rs. 15,000/-. The respondent s bid was for Rs.15,100/- and the sale was knocked down as stated earlier, subject to the discharge of the mortgage for a sum of Rs, 40,000/-. It is now stated by Mr. A.T.M. Sampath,



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top