K KANTHA RAO Vs. T NARAYANA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition raises an interesting question of law.

(2.) The Judgment-debtor is the petitioner. The 1st respondent obtained a money decree in O.S. No. 133 of 1974 on 28-8-1974 against the petitioner. During the execution proceedings in E.P. No. 40 of 1975, the Judgment-debtor made some payments. Substantial amount of the decree stood undischarged. The properties of the judgment-debtor-petitioner were brought to sale and respondent No. 2 purchased the same for Rs. 14,000/- subject to a mortgage of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at Rs. 1-10 Ps. per month The judgment-debtor filed E.A. No. 637 of 1977 under Order 21 Rule 90 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the sale and the same was dismissed on 29-10-1983 holding the sale as valid. The matter was carried in appeal in C.M.A. No 72 of 1983 which was also dismissed. A further revision in C.R.P. No. 240 of 1985 to the High Court under Section 15 Civil Procedure Code met the same fate on 6-3-1985.

(3.) Then there is a second round of litigation. The sans of the judgment-debtor filed O S No. 28 of 1981 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam for partition, as indigent persons. Tae suit was dismissed after full-fledged trial. The matter was carried in appeal to the High Court in A.S. No. 1028 of 1988 and they sought for stay which was initially granted, but vacated later on 16-2-1989. A petition was also file under Section 47 which was dismissed by the District Munsit, Machilipatnam. After all these proceedings, the judgment-debtor deposited an amunt of Rs,9,000/- on 24-1-1989 towards decree amount and filed E.A No. 326 of 1988 out of which this revision arises for recording full satisfaction of the decree and to set aside the sale held on 30-12-1976. The trial Court dismissed the petition holding that no fraud is played by the decree-holder or the auction purchaser and the sale cannot be set aside.