The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sale of mortgaged property can be declared void if it is found to be illegal and without jurisdiction due to non-compliance with statutory provisions. Additionally, the judgment reaffirmed the right of redemption for the petitioner upon depositing the amount due to the Corporation.

The 4th respondent and the 4th judgment-debtor in SFC (OP) No. 206/ 81 and E.P. 135/84 on the file of the District Court, Ernakulam, has preferred this revision against the order dated 19-12-1995 in E.A. 39/1995 arising out of the said E.P. Respondent No. 1 herein, the Kerala Financial Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation) is the decree-holder. Respondent Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 along with the petitioner are the partners of respondent No. 2 firm called Mundadan Industries at Angamali. By the impugned order, the prayer of the petitioner to set aside the sale of the immovable properties which are items 1 and 2 of the decree schedule held on 12-3-1986 in execution of the decree for realisation of the loan amount was rejected. Her Prayer to permit her to redeem the said items of mortgaged property by deposit of the entire decree debt with interest, costs etc. up-to-date was also rejected.

2. The questions that arise for consideration in this revision are (1) whether the sale of the two items of immovable properties held on l2-3-1986 in execution of the decree is liable to be set aside on the ground that the sale was void; and (2) whether the petitioner is entitled to redeem the mortgage by deposit of the entire decretal debt together with up-to-date interest and costs.

3. As the partners of respondent No. 2 firm-Mundadan industries, the petitioner and others took a loan of Rs. 5,60,000/- from the first respondent-Corporation. The property, the sale of which is now sought to be declared as void, was furnished as collateral security and a mortgage deed was registered on 5-4-1972. Since the loan amount was not paid, the Corporation instituted the O.P. on 6-7-1981 for recovery of an amount of Rs.12,91,505.85 with future interest at 13.5%. The present petitioner was respondent No. 1 therein. On 5-10-1983, the prayer in SFC (OP) 206/81 was allowed with a direction for sale of the property to realise the outstanding dues from the petitioner and other partners of the firm. No appeal was filed against the order in that O.P. Hence that order has become final. On 29-8-1984, execution was levied by filing E.P. 135/84 for realisation of Rupees 19,29,965/-. Notice under rule 66 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short, the C.P.C. was issued. The present petitioner appeared on 15-12-1984 and filed a counter-affidavit on 2-2-1985. The objection filed by the judgment-debtors were considered and ruled out by the order dated 5-8-1985. The property was sold on 12-3-1986. The decree-holder mortgagee-Corporation purchased the property for Rs. 17 lakhs. On 24-5-1986, judgment-debtors 1, 2 and 3 filed a petition under Rule 90 of Order 21, C.P.C. for setting aside the sale. It was registered as E.A. 42/86. The present petitioner was not made a party therein. On 27-3-1987, the petition was dismissed. The judgment-debtors filed C.M.A. No. 132/87 before the High Court against the order dated 27-3-1987. By the judgment dated 10-3-1988, this Court remanded the matter for fresh hearing. E.A. 42/86 was again dismissed on 4-9-1989. C.M.A. No. 13/90 was filed before this Court against the order dated 4-9-1989. In that C.M.A. the appellants judgment-debtors unconditionally agreed to pay the decretal debt on or before 2-7-1991 in accordance with the joint statement filed by both the parties on 2-1-1991. On 31-8-1990, the Corporation had filed a petition (E.A. 23/90) for delivery of possession of the property sold in execution of the decree. Notice was issued to the present petitioner as well as other judgment-debtors. The present petitioner and other did not file any objection although entered appearance. Hence the Court passed an order on 30-11-1990 for delivery of possession of the property to the Corporation. However, the proceeding remained stayed till 22-9-1991 in view of the order in C.M.A. No. l3/90. On 6-9-1991, the Court passed the order for delivery of possession on 30-9-1991. There