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

1965 Supreme(Kar) 8

D.M.CHANDRASHEKHAR
H. S. SIDDAPPA – Appellant
Versus
LAKSHMAMMA – Respondent


( 1 ) THE petitioner in this revision petition, was the highest bidder in an auction sale of immovable properties held in Ex. 100/63 on the file of the Munsiff, Arasikere. He deposited one-fourth of the bid amount at the conclusion of the auction sale. By his order dated 18-1-64, the learned Munsiff purported not to accept the bid on the ground that it was too low. The amount deposited was directed to be refunded to the petitioner and a fresh sale was directed to be held. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Munsiff, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

( 2 ) MR. Narasimha Murthy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that officer conducting the sale had exercised his discretion and accepted the bid, that the Court had not reserved to itself the discretion to accept or not to accept the bid made at the auction sale under its order, that the petitioner who was the highest bidder became the purchaser and that the Court had no power not to accept the bid and to direct a fresh sale.

( 3 ) THE sale proclamation in this case was issued in the form No. 29 of Appendix E to the Code of Civil Procedure. Condition No. 3 of the sale proclamation states that it shall























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