Back
K. MANMADHA RAO
B. Narasimha Rao – Appellant
Versus
G. S. Murthy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
1. The Appellants herein are the claim petitioners 3 to 5 before both the Court below filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2016 in E.A. No. 90 of 2010 in E.P. No. 271 of 1998 in O.S. No. 28 of 1993 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada (in short ‘the court below’), which is filed under Order XXI, Rules 90 and 101 of C.P.C seeking to declare the petition schedule property as ‘assigned property’ and consequently declare the auction held by the court below on 13.12.2000 as void and to raise the attachment.
2. The court below after hearing on both the counsel, holding that the appellants have failed to substantiate their claim by adducing evidence that there was irregularity in conducting the auction, by the court. Their version is that the schedule property is assigned property, but Ex.B4 and B5 and other oral evidence, it is not at all assigned property and it is a private property and that the appellants are not entitled to any relief and accordingly dismissed the application. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed.
3. Heard Mr. A.S.C. Bose, learn
Auction of assigned property is void under the Assignment Act, 1977; however, failure to prove irregularity in auction leads to dismissal of claims.
The right to contest an attachment order remains valid even after a sale certificate is issued, provided objections are made before the sale is made absolute.
Claim petitions under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC are unmaintainable if no attachment of the property exists in execution of a decree.
Order 21 Rule 58(1) of CPC reads adjudication of claims to, or objections to attachment of, property.
A party cannot assert ownership or set aside property attachments if the property was previously alienated during a court-ordered attachment, regardless of purported ignorance of such order.
The execution court must recognize claims to property that does not belong to the judgment debtor, even post-auction sale, unless the sale is confirmed.
Settlement deeds must respect prior court orders and creditor rights, and possession claims must consider prior judicial outcomes to uphold judicial integrity.
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
