Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.
Arunachellam Chetty
Versus
Somasundaram Chetty, By His
Decided On : 8 March, 1920
Rateable Distribution - Auction Purchase - The court held that the permission granted to the counter-petitioner to bid at the auction and to set off his claim under the decree does not affect the right of a rival decree holder to rateable distribution, as provided under Order XXI, Rule 72 and Section 73. The lower court's decision disallowing rateable distribution was reversed, and the case was remitted for fresh disposal.
Fact of the Case:
The counter-petitioner was granted permission to bid at an auction and set off his claim under the decree against the purchase-money. The petitioner applied for rateable distribution, but the lower court disallowed it.
Finding of the Court:
The court reversed the lower court's decision disallowing rateable distribution and remitted the case for fresh disposal.
Issues: The issue was whether the permission granted to the counter-petitioner to set off his claim against the purchase-money affected the right of the petitioner to rateable distribution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the permission to set off does not affect the right of a rival decree holder to rateable distribution, as provided under Order XXI, Rule 72 and Section 73.
Final Decision: The lower court's decision disallowing rateable distribution was reversed, and the case was remitted to the District Munsif for fresh disposal.
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.
1. Petitioner and the counter-petitioner had decrees against a common-judgment debtor. Permission was granted by the Court to the counter petitioner to bid at the auction and to set off his claim under the decree against the purchase-money. In pursuance of the permission, counter petitioner purchased, on 28th August 1918, one item of the judgment-debtors property. On the same date another property was sold to a stranger and he deposited the money on 10th September 1918. Apparently, the counter petitioner did not deposit the money. Petitioner applied for rateable distribution on 29th August 1918. The lower Court has held that the petitioner is not entitled to rateable distribution in respect of the purchase money payable by the counter-petitioner. I think he is wrong. Under Order XXI, Rule 72 permission to bid and to set off are made subject to the rights of decree-holders under Section 73. There is nothing before me to show that the permission in the present case was of a different character. In my opinion, the permission to set off does not affect the right of a rival decree holder to rateable distribution. See also Bijoy Kumar Addya v. Rama Nath Barman 43 Ind. Cas. 715.
2. The judgment of the District Munsif, in so far as it disallows rateable distribution, is reversed and the case remitted to him for fresh disposal in the light of the above observations. Costs will abide the result.
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
