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

2014 Supreme(SC) 740

ANIL R.DAVE, UDAY UMESH LALIT
Guttikonda Venkataramaiah – Appellant
Versus
Godavarthy Venkateswarlu – Respondent


Judgment :-

Anil R. Dave, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel.

2. Leave granted.

3. In this appeal, the appellant – an auction purchaser, has challenged the validity of the judgment dated 13th December, 2013, delivered in Civil Revision Petition No.6528 of 2012 by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.

4. The appellant is an auction purchaser, whereas respondent no.1 is a principal debtor and respondent no.2 is a creditor in this case.

5. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under:

Respondent no.2 had filed OS No.45 of 2006 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali against respondent no.1 for recovery of Rs.1,78,000/-. An ex-parte decree was passed on 29th December, 2006 and the decretal amount was Rs.3,55,732/-. It appears from the record that no successful effort was made by respondent no.1 to challenge the said ex-parte decree.

6. Thereafter, the execution proceedings had been initiated by respondent no.2 for sale of immovable property – agricultural land belonging to the principal debtor – respondent no.1 herein and the sale was conducted on 30th May, 2011. The property had been sold for Rs.13,05,000/- in an auction and the















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