CHAGNATI RAGHAVA REDDI Vs. KONDAPANENI KRISHNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 103 of 1950 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Tenali, against the judgment of out learned brother Satyanarayana Raju, J.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the appeal may be briefly set out. The appellant instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondent for recovery of some amount due to him on certain dealings. There was attachment of a house belonging to the respondent before judgment. After obtaining the decree, the appellant proceeded to bring that property to sale. Presumably, a notice under Order 21, Rule 66 C.P.C. Was served on the respondent at the time of the drawing up of the proclamation of sale. But he does not seem to have appeared in answer to that notice, with the result that the terms of the proclamation of sale were settled in his absence. After its publication, the property was brought to sale and it was purchased by a third party. As he failed to make the necessary deposit, the property was ordered to be resold, by reason of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 84, C.P.C.

(3.) At that juncture, the respondent appeared and raised an objection to the sale of the property, claiming exemption under Section 60(1) Clause (c) of the proviso. This objection was overruled by the Subordinate Judge in the view that as the judgment-debtor failed to appear in Court at the time of the drawing up of proclamation of sale and raise the objection at to the salability of the property, he was barred from doing so at a later stage of the proceedings. He was also of the opinion that since the building was not appurtenant to agricultural lands the exemption could not be claimed. The aggrieved judgment-debtor carried the matter in appeal to this Court.