GOVINDA PILLAI
Krishnan Kartha – Appellant
Versus
Kumaraswami Namboodiripad – Respondent
1. The application by the revision petitioner under 0.21 R. 97 C.P.C. for re-delivery of the property mentioned therein was dismissed by the lower court by the order sought to be revised. He had purchased this property on 20.6.1114 in auction under the Revenue Recovery Act and secured possession on 19.4.1117. The decree in the present case was passed on 22.6.1113 allowing the plaintiff to realise certain sums of money charged on the properties scheduled therein. Item 7 there is S. No. 310/5 which is the property sold in revenue auction. In execution of this decree portion of the money was realised and for the balance item 7 was sold in court auction on 19.8.1117 and purchased by the assignee-decree-holder. It was delivered over to the auction purchaser and the Amin filed his report to that effect on 16.10.1110. It is for the redelivery of this property that the petition was filed before the lower court.
2. The learned Munsiff dismissed the petition on the ground that it had not been proved that the revenue sale was for arrears of Sirkar tax due from this S.No. 310/5. As such it was the view of the lower court that the revision petitioner could rank only as a transferee p
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.