A GNANAN Vs. PALANIAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S. No. 57 of 1986, on the file of Sub Court, Srivilliputhur, is the appellant.

(2.) IN the suit, appellant claimed the following reliefs: "

(3.) IN the written statement filed by first defendant, its partner said that the company has obtained a money decree against the plaintiff, and the property was brought to sale with notice to her, and the same was sold in Court-auction. An attempt was made by her (plaintiff) to have the sale set aside under Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C., but the same was allowed to be dismissed for default, and later, the sale itself was confirmed. It is the further contention of the first defendant that after confirmation of sale, delivery of property itself was taken through Court, and both plaintiff and her husband have attested the "Kaicheet". After effecting delivery, plaintiff's husband requested for some more time to surrender vacant possession. Six months' time was granted, and in the meanwhile, the present suit was filed. It is further said that whatever right plaintiff had, is lost by the Court-sale and the entire right, title and interest of the plaintiff is obtained by first defendant. No portion of the equitable redemption is retained by plaintiff and, therefore, she is not entitled to redeem the second defendant. There is no case for injunction, and the suit is also barred under S. 47, C.P.C.