Back
B. V. L. N. CHAKRAVARTHI
Byrapuram Abdul Samad, S/o. Byrapuram Abdul Hamid – Appellant
Versus
Pinjari Chand Basha, S/o. Pinjari Shalimiah – Respondent
ORDER :
This revision-petition is directed against the Order, dated 20.04.2015 in E.P.No.81 of 2014 in O.S.No.46 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nandikotkur, whereunder the Execution Court raised attachment over item No.1 of E.P., schedule and directed to hand over the said property to the Finance Company, which is having Hypothecation Agreement in its favour for the said property i.e., vehicle bearing No.AP21 TW 6275 (Mahindra Bolero Camper SC XL F vehicle), purchased by the respondent No.1/judgment-debtor under Hypothecation Agreement with the respondent No.2/Finance Company.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the execution petition proceedings.
3. The execution petition was filed by the decree-holder under Order XXI Rule 66 and 77 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’) for sale of two (02) motor vehicles shown in E.P., schedule as item No.1 and item No.2, respectively, for recovery of decree amount due from the judgment-debtor. The learned Execution Court, after hearing both sides and considering their respective contentions, passed the impugned Order, partly allowing the execution petition for sa
The main legal point established is that property conveyed to a Defendant's wife can be attached to satisfy a decree if the conveyance was done to evade execution, and legal heirs are liable to satis....
For a claim under Order 21 Rule 58, there must be an attachment of the property in execution proceedings.
There is no provision in Civil Procedure Code, governing procedure for impleading subsequent purchasers at the stage of execution proceedings – In such an event, inherent powers of court under Sectio....
The execution court must respect property rights and issue proper notifications prior to attachment; failure to do this invalidates the order.
The Court emphasized the importance of verifying the ownership of the property before making an attachment before judgment and upheld the rights of a third party purchaser under Order 38 Rule 10 of C....
The court established that a party challenging a court auction sale must provide clear evidence of irregularities, and mere assertions without supporting evidence are insufficient to set aside a sale....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
