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

1924 Supreme(Mad) 799

M.NAIR
Kamana Venkataswami – Appellant
Versus
Godavarti Nagayya – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. The 2nd defendant; is the petitioner. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises in connexion with an application made by him to set aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. A preliminary objection is taken that no second appeal lies in such a case. In reply, it is pointed out by Mr. Somasundaram for the appellant that though the petition is filed as one under Order 21, Rule 90 in substance the objections which he intends to press here-are really objections which come under Order 21, Rule 66 and, therefore, there is a right of second appeal as the application is really one under Section 47, Civil P.C. The objections put forward are two in number, namely, that the petitioner had no notice of the proclamation of sale and that there is an under-valuation of this property. Both these objections fall under Order 21, Rule 66 and according to the decision in Thekkedath Neelu v. Subrarnania Moothan (1919) 11 M.L.W. 59 the petitioner has got the right of preferring a second appeal. I, therefore, overrule the preliminary objection.

2. On the merits, I find that no question of law arises in this second appeal. The lower Appellate Court has found that, tho

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