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

1985 Supreme(Kar) 393

P.A.KULKARNI
MANJAMMA – Appellant
Versus
S. N. SURYANARAYANA RAO – Respondent


Advocates:
H.B.DATAR, V.K.VARADACHARI

P. A. KULKARNI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the judgment-Debtor No. 2 against the order dated 25-10-78 passed by III Addl. Civil Judge, Mysore in Ex. case No. 88/77 rejecting I. A. 12 filed by Judgment-Debtor ('jdr' for short) No. 2, under Or. 21, Rule 90, C. P. C.

( 2 ) THE sale was held on 30-6-78. One Shikshadevi, respondent No. 2 herein, bid the property for Rs. 50,000/- in the sale held in the Court and as she was the highest bidder, the bid was accepted.

( 3 ) JDR No. 2 filed the application under Or. 21, Rule 90 C. P. C. challenging the said sale alleging that the sale proclamation was bad in law as it was not published in Kannada. According to her, as the sale proclamation was issued in English, nobody came to know about the contents of the sale proclamation or about the publication of the sale proclamation. She has then urged that she was the owner of the property and her name had not been shown as owner in the sale proclamation. On the other hand, the sale proclamation showed the name of JDr No. 1 as owner. According to her, this dissuaded the people from coming to the Court to bid for the property. She then urged that the sale proclamation was not published with notice














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