R RAMA PRABHA Vs. RENGANAYAKI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in the above revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is "Whether a Court auction sale in pursuance of a money decree can be set aside on the ground that the sale is not for a joint family necessity"?

(2.) The facts of the case are narrated in a nutshell hereinbelow to appreciate the issue on hand: One Rangaraj, the 2nd respondent in the above revision and the father of the revision petitioners, had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,000/- from the 1st respondent herein under the security of a Promissory Note. Since the repayment did not take place, the 1st respondent had filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,960/- together with interest against the 2nd respondent. Despite receipt of summons, the 2nd respondent did not enter appearance and an ex parte decree came to be passed on 02.03.1988.

(3.) The 1st respondent filed E.P.No.286 of 1988 on 30.08.1988 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, to execute the decree by bringing the property of the 2nd respondent for sale. Even in the execution proceedings the 2nd Respondent chose to remain exparte and the property was directed to be sold in court auction.