Back
1912 Supreme(Mad) 500
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
S Aiyar, S Aiyar
Jagadambal Ammal
Versus
Ramaswamy Iyengar
Decided On : 26 September, 1912
Parties bound to raise objections to attachment in execution proceedings. Objection to purchase without leave of the Court can only be raised by parties to the suit.
Headnote:
Objection - Purchase of Shares - Attachment of Property - Notice of Attachment - Sale - Leave of the Court
Fact of the Case:
The lower Appellate Court decided the questions of law correctly. The defendants were bound to raise any objection they had to the attachment of the property in execution proceedings. The 1st defendant has been found to have no right in the property. The sale became final against the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The lower Courts found that all rights in the land, including the shares of defendants, were attached. The 1st defendant cannot now set up the title of the defendants. The objection of the plaintiffs' purchase without the leave of the Court could only be raised by the parties to the suit and not by a stranger like the 1st defendant.
Issues: Objection to purchase of shares, attachment of property, notice of attachment, sale, leave of the Court
Ratio Decidendi: Defendants were bound to raise objections to the attachment of the property in execution proceedings. The 1st defendant cannot now set up the title of the defendants. Objection to the plaintiffs' purchase without the leave of the Court could only be raised by the parties to the suit and not by a stranger.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed with costs.
1. The questions arising in this second appeal are, no doubt, questions of law, but they have, in our opinion, all been decided correctly by the lower Appellate Court.
2. With respect to the objection of the plaintiffs purchase of the shares of the defendants Nos. 4 to 7 in Original Suit No. 3 of 1883 on the ground that they were not personally liable under the decree for the mortgage debt, those defendants were bound to raise any objection they had to the attachment of the property in execution proceedings. See Ramaswami Sastrulu v. Kameswaramma 23 M. 361 (F.B.). The lower Courts have found that all rights in the land, including the shares of defendants Nos. 2 to 7, were attached. If, as is suggested, those defendants had no notice of the attachment and sale, the proper course for them would be to get the sale set aside in execution proceedings. The 1st defendant has been found to have no right in the property. The sale having become final against the defendants Nos. 4 to 7 in Original Suit No. 3 of 1833, the 1st defendant cannot now set up their title.
3. With regard to the question of the plaintiffs purchase having been made without the leave of the Court, that is an objection that could be raised only by the parties to the suit and not by a stranger like the 1st defendant. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.
