REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRIPAD Appellant

V/S

THOMAKUTTY Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MACNAUGHTEN V. MAHABIR PERSHAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]
NANA KUMAR ROY V. GOLAM CHUNDER DEY. [REFERRED TO]
BASHARUTHULLA V. UMA CHURN DUTT [REFERRED TO]
TASADDUK RASUL KHAN V. AHMAD HUSSAIN [REFERRED TO]
MALKARJUN V. NARHARI [REFERRED TO]
ARUNACHELAM CHETTY V. KULANDASAMI TEVAR [REFERRED TO]
VENKATESWARA ETTU NAICKER V. AYYAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
FIRM BUNDHEL KHAND CYCLE AND MOTOR AGENCY V. PEOPLES BANK OF NORTHERN INDIA LTD. [REFERRED TO]
WISH NATH V. RAHMAT ULLAH [REFERRED TO]
BALIRAM SINGH V. NARSINGDAS PRAYAGDAS [REFERRED TO]
DHIRENDRA NATH GORAI IN C A NO 85 OF 1961 SUBAL CHANDRA NATH SAHA IN C A NO 86 OF 1961 VS. SUDHIR CHANDRA GHOSHIN BOTH APPEALS :SUDHIR CHANDRA GHOSHIN BOTH APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
KUMMATHI NARAYANAPPA VS. TALARI AKKULAPPA [REFERRED TO]
PAKIANATHAN NADAR PONNAYYAN NADAR VS. KARTHIYANI PILLAI PARVATHI PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
PHILIP VS. THOMAS [REFERRED TO]
CHERIA CHACKO VS. KUMARAN KESAVAN [REFERRED TO]
MALATHY AMMA VS. JOS SON OR KATTUKKARAN VARU [REFERRED TO]
P K CHIDAMBARA IYER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES S VS. KATTAKATH KUNHUMOIDIANS SON KUNHAMUTHAMMAD [OVERRULED]
RAJENDRA BEHARI LAL VS. BGULZARI LAL [REFERRED TO]
GAJRAJMATI TEORAIN VS. AKBAR HUSSAIN [REFERRED TO]
GOBARDHAN BEHARI BOSE VS. SARAT CHANDRA BHATTACHARJEE [REFERRED TO]
SM ASHALATA BOSE VS. MANINDRA NATH BOSE [REFERRED TO]
MOTAHAR HOSSAIN VS. MOHAMMAD YAKUB [REFERRED TO]
JOGENDRA NATH BHATTACHARYYA VS. SHEIKH NABI NEWAJ [REFERRED TO]
MARUDANAYAGAM PILLAI VS. MANICKAVASAKAM CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
RAI RADHA KRISHNA VS. BISHESHAR SAHAY [REFERRED TO]
SRIKAKULA CHINNA VENKATANARAYANA AND ORS. VS. PANNAPATI ELIAS [REFERRED TO]
K. SWAMINATHA IYER AND ANR. VS. K.G. KRISHNASWAMI IYER AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree holder auction purchaser is the revision petitioner. In execution of the decree the decree schedule properties were sold in court auction on 6-2-1961 and purchased by the decree holder for Rs. 154.37 in satisfaction of the decree. The court auction was confirmed on 10-3-1961. The respondents who are the judgment debtors filed an application on 20-3-1961 under S.47 and 151 and O.21 R.90, C.P.C. to set aside the court sale. The execution court held that in view of the omission to affix the proclamation of sale in the property sold and the omission to publish the same by beat of drum there was material irregularity and fraud in publishing and conducting the sale as a result of which the respondents sustained substantial injury. The learned Munsiff also took the view that the application to set aside the sale filed on 20-3-1961 was not barred by limitation as the respondents were entitled to the benefit of S.18 of the Limitation Act. The learned District Judge though concurred with the learned Munsiff in setting aside the sale took the view that the omission to affix the proclamation of sale on the property sold and the omission to publish the same by beat of drum is not a mere irregularity in the publication or conduct of the sale but would render the sale illegal or void and it is open to the judgment debtor to have the court sale declared illegal or void by an application filed under S.47, C.P.C. which will be governed by Art.181 of the Indian Limitation Act.

(2.) Both the lower courts have found that a copy of the proclamation was not affixed to a conspicuous part of the property and there was no publishing of the proclamation by beat of drum. O.21 R.67 of the Civil Procedure Code reads thus:

(3.) The point for decision therefore is whether the court sale which was held on 6-2-1961 is void or only voidable on account of the omission to proclaim the sale of property by beat of drum and to affix the proclamation in a conspicuous part

Click here to view full judgment.

NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRIPAD Vs. THOMAKUTTY

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address