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

1977 Supreme(AP) 221

CHENNAKESAVA REDDY
SATYAVOLU VENKATA BHASKARA UMAMAHESWARA VARAPRASADA MURTHY – Appellant
Versus
POTTI VEERARAJU AND S. RAMA RAO – Respondent


CHENNAKESAV REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition arises out of execution proceedings initiated by the auction-purchaser, the first respondent herein under Order 21, Rule 93 C. P. C. for recovery of the purchase money and other expenses from the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor, the petitioner and the second respondent respectively in the revision petition. The decree-holder and judgment-debtor are brothers. The decree-holder obtained three money decrees against his brothers in three suits in o. S. No. 17 of 1956, O. S No. 63/55 and O. S. No. 2 of 1956 on the file of the District Court, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. All the three decrees were compromise decrees creating a charge on three items of property belonging tc the judgment-debtor.

( 2 ) IN execution of the decree in O S. No. 17 of 1956. the decree-holder brought item No. 1 of the charged property to sale, in E. P. No, 13 of 1960. The auction was held on 28-8-1961. The first respondent was the highest bidder for Rs. 13. 000/- He deposited into the court the entire sale pries by 6-9-1961 as required under the conditions of sale The sale was posted for confirmation to 19-7-1962. While the matters stood thus, one Karri Mab












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