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

1966 Supreme(Mad) 333

M.ANANTANARAYANAN, P.RAMAKRISHNAN
Ramathal – Appellant
Versus
Nagarathinammal – Respondent


Advocates:
S. V. Venugopalachari, for Appellants.
T. R. Srinivasan, for Respondents.

Ramakrishnan, J.-

These connected appeals are directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in E.A. Nos. 80 and 525 of 1963 in O.S. No. 37 of 1955. The prior facts necessary for the consideration of these appeals are briefly the following: —

The schedule property was made the subject of a simple mortgage executed on 7th July, 1949, by Nagarathinammal and Chandrasekharan respondents 1 and 2 in the appeals. R.K. Kandaswami, the fourth respondent, obtained a preliminary decree on the mortgage on 14th August, 1956, and thereafter, a final decree on 2nd March, 1957, for the sale of the hypotheca. The property Was sold in Court auction on 2nd April, 1958, and purchased by Dhandayuthapani Chettiar the appellant in A.A.O. Nos. 232 of 1964 and 410 of 1964, On 14th June, 1958, Nagarathinammal, Chandrasekharan, and one Ramaswami Gounder who obtained an agreement for sale of the hypotheca in his favour from the mortgagors, filed an application under Order 21, rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, for setting aside the sale, on account of material irregularities in the conduct of the sale. They also furnished security required under the Rules. But on account of some alleged























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