Back
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
K. Rishikesava Nageswara Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Bank of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J.
1. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellant/plaintiff challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 21.02.2004, in O.S. No.22 of 1997 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondents herein are the defendants in the said Suit.
2. The Appellant/Plaintiff filed the above said suit praying the Court to set aside the Court sale dated 12.03.1996 conducted by the I Additional District Judge, Nellore in E.P.No.8 of 1988 in O.S.No.104 of 1975 on the ground of fraud played by the defendants and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the 5th defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff to the plaint schedule property and for costs.
3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.22 of 1997, are as under:
The first defendant herein filed a suit in O.S.No.104 of 1975 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Nellore against the defendants 2 and 3 for recovery of a sum of Rs.43,542.38 ps. on a m
The court affirmed that disputes regarding execution of decrees must be resolved by the executing court, and allegations of fraud must be substantiated with evidence.
A sale under Order XXI Rule 90 can only be set aside if the applicant proves both material irregularity and substantial injury resulting from it.
The court upheld the validity of the execution sale, ruling that the appellant failed to prove material irregularities or substantial injury, affirming the finality of the trial court's decree.
A charged property can be executed for recovery under a decree without instituting a separate suit, and rateable distribution is only available to pending applications from decree-holders at the time....
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 th....
A transferee of a judgment debtor cannot invoke Order XXI Rule 99 for re-delivery, as their rights must be independent of the judgment debtor's rights.
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
