PAPPAMMAL Vs. PAZHANISWAMY GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision Mr. C. K. Viswanatha Iyer, learned counsel for the judgment debtor petitioner, challenges the concurrent orders of the subordinate courts holding that the deposit made by the petitioner for setting aside a sale under O.21 R.89 is not in accordance with the provisions contained in O.21 R.89, C. P. C.

(2.) The findings recorded by the two subordinate courts are twofold namely,

(3.) It is necessary to state a few facts leading up to the filing of the application by the judgment debtor in E. A. 403/64. In execution of the decree obtained by the plaintiff respondent in O. S. 114/57, Munsiff's Court, Chittur, the properties of the petitioner were brought to sale. It is seen that originally the sale was intended to take place on 16th March 1964 and ultimately the sale actually took place on 30th March 1964. The decree holder himself purchased the properties for a sum of Rs. 1,909.75p.