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

2022 Supreme(AP) 47

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. Sesha Sai, J.
Smt.Bonda Mary Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
M/S. Simhagiri Chits Funds Pvt. Ltd. and others – Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No.921 of 2019
Decided On : 27-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: N Subba Rao
For the Respondent: D Kasim Saheb

Point of Law: whether Section 35 of the Act is mandatory or directory the sale held in violation of the said provision is only illegal but not a nullity and therefore, it can be set aside only in the manner and the reasons prescribed in Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure and further when the respondents did not attend at the drawing up of the proclamation of sale, the sale cannot be set aside at their instance.

Headnote:

Limitation Act - Article 127 - Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Order 21 Rule 90 and Order 38 Rules 5 and 6 - Sections 47, 365, 367 and 368 - Bengal Money Lenders Act - Section 35 - Foot of a chit fund transaction - Registered sale agreement-cum-general power of attorney - Absolute Conditional order of attachment - Decree - Decree by way of the sale of the attached schedule property.

Finding of the Court:

Respondent relies on another three Judge-Bench Judgment of Apex Court in Dhirendra Nath v. Sudhir Chandra, wherein their Lordships have considered the provisions of Order 21, Rule 90 C.P.C. and also the J3engal Money Lenders Act (10 of 1940) Section 35, where it was contended that whether Section 35 of the Act is mandatory or directory the sale held in violation of the said provision is only illegal but not a nullity and therefore, it can be set aside only in the manner and the reasons prescribed in Order 21, Rule 90 of Code of Civil Procedure and further when the respondents did not attend at the drawing up of the proclamation of sale - have considered the effect of Section 35 of Bengal Money Lenders Act (10 of 1940), Order 21 Rule 64 and Order 21 Rule 66 - Court does not find any reason to meddle with the well-articulated and well-reasoned order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge.

Result: Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

ORDER :

Judgment debtors in E.P.No.104 of 2003 in O.S.No.933 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, are the petitioners in the present Civil Revision Petition. The present Revision challenges the order dated 30.01.2006 passed by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, in E.A.No.293 of 2004 in E.P.No.104 of 2003 in O.S.No.933 of 1997. Respondent No.1 herein is the Decree Holder and respondent No.1 herein instituted O.S.No.933 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, against (1) Sri Bonda Nageswara Rao, S/o.Atchannaidu, (2) Sri Bonda Raghunath, S/o.Nageswara Rao and (3) Smt. Bonda Mary, W/o.Nageswara Rao, for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,77,713/- on the foot of a chit fund transaction, wherein defendant No.1 joined as a member and defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors. Pending O.S.No.933 of 1997, plaintiff/decree holder/respondent No.1 herein filed I.A.No.1004 of 1997 under the provisions of Order 38 Rules 5 and 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.), and the trial Court on 13.11.1997, passed a conditional order of attachment and the same was made absolute on 16.07.1997. Pending the suit, defendant No.1, Sri Bonda Nageswara Rao, passed away and the said suit was decreed on 30.10.2000 against defendant Nos.2 and 3 jointly and severally for a sum of Rs.1,77,713/- together with subsequent interest @12% per annum on Rs.1,40,000/- from 13.11.1997, i.e., the date of suit, till the date of realisation and the trial Court also awarded costs of Rs.9,442/-. Respondent No.1 herein filed E.P.No.104 of 2003 under Order 21 Rule 11 of C.P.C. against defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are the petitioners herein, seeking enforcement of the decree by way of the sale of the attached schedule property. The schedule property is a house bearing D.No.2-292, Old Dairy Farm Post, Chinagadili village, Indiranagar, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Limits. The boundaries of the said property shown in E.P.No.104 of 2003 are as follows:

East

Municipal Road

South

House bearing D.No.2-293

West

Compound wall and vacant site belonging to Sri Pratap.

North

House bearing D.No.2-291

2. Sale notice was published on 22.10.2002, proposing the sale on 14.11.2002, and on which date, sale was conducted and respondent No.2 herein, Mr. Kata Venkata Reddy stood as highest bidder and the bid was knocked down in his favour for Rs.14,50,000/- and the sale was confirmed on 30.01.2006 and the sale certificate was also issued on 19.04.2006. Pending E.P.No.104 of 2003 (Old E.P.No.573 of 2000), M/s. Kalyani Constructions, represented by its Managing Partner Smt. Rajamudili Sujatha filed E.A.No.674 of 2002 (New E.A.No.29 of 2003) on 08.11.2002 against the decree holder, judgment debtors (petitioners herein) under Section 47 of the C.P.C. on the ground that the petitioners herein sold two items of the property by way of registered sale agreement-cum-general power of attorney on 12.01.2001. Schedule of the said E.A.No.674 of 2002 (New E.A.No.29 of 2003) is as follows:-

    "Item No.1:-

Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam Sub-Registry, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Pedagadili village & Panchayat, Chinagadili village bearing S.No.110/2part, undivided and unspecified share of 372.4 Sq.yds or 311.326 Sq.mts. together with a 130 Sft.A.C.Sheets shed thereon bearing Door No.2-293/1, Assessment No.108306, Ward No.25 out of total area of 532.4 Sq.yds with 150 Sft.A.C.Sheet shed and bounded by:

    East

    Road

    88 feet or 26.82 mts

    South

    Property belongs to Dr.N.Venkata Rao

    62 feet or 18.90 mts

    West

    Property belongs to T.Vijayalakshmi

    74 feet or 22.56 mts

    North

    Walkway lane

    62 feet or 18.90 mts

    Item No.II:-

    All that site measuring 721.20 Sq.yds or 602.923 Sq.mts out of 871.20 Sq.yds or 720.436Sq.mts and with a plinth area o

                                              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 Back to top