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

1933 Supreme(Mad) 149

SUNDARAM CHETTY
A. Swaminatha Odayar – Appellant
Versus
Kalyanarama Aiyangar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Sundaram Chetty, J.

1. In this case, the only question for determination is whether the petitioner had locus standi to put in an application tinder Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, for setting aside a sale in execution of a decree against him. Both the Courts below have held that the petitioner could not maintain this application, because he was adjudged an insolvent and his estate must be deemed to have vested in the Official Receiver. If before the auction sale in question, the petitioner was adjudged an insolvent, I fail to understand why the decree-holder did not bring in the Official Receiver as a party to the execution proceedings. It is obvious that any sale held in execution of that decree subsequent to the adjudication of the judgment-debtor would not bind the Official Receiver, unless he was impleaded in the execution proceedings prior to the auction sale. On this simple ground, it would be open to the Official Receiver to have this auction sale set aside. But that is not the question with which we are concerned in this revision petition.

2. According to Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, any person whose interests are affected by the sale may apply to

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