KANAKAMMA Vs. SAMBASIVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the appellant. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property, of an extent of 0-23 cents, and a mm of Rs. 1,200/- towards profits. The second appeal arises in the following circumstances :

(2.) The defendant purchased an extent of Ac. 1-10 cents, including the suit land, from one B. Venkateswarulu under an agreement of sale dated 16-11-1961, for a consideration of Rs 7,865/-. She paid a sum of Rs. 2,400/- by way of earnest money and, according to her, she was put in possession of the land. Inasmuch as Venkateswarulu refused to abide by the agreement, the defendant says, she was obliged to file a suit, O.S No. 34/1962 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, for specific performance of the said agreement, against Venkateswarulu. However, with a view to defeat her rights, the defendant says, Venkateswarulu brought about a partition batween himself and his four sons, on 31-12-1962, whereunder only an extent of 0-23 cents fell to the share of Venkateswarulu. In that suit the defendant deposited the balance amount of Rs. 5,465/-. O.S.No. 34/1962 came to be decreed on 31-12-1964.

(3.) On 2-3-1954, i.e., even bsfore O S. 34/1962 was decreed, Venkateswarulu filed an insolvency-Petition, being I.P.No. 4 of 1964, on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judga, Bapatla. He was adjudged an insolvent on 8-2-1965, under Ex. A-2. On 11-5-1965 the Official Receiver issued Ex. A-4, the notification, proposing to sell the suit extent of 0-23 cents. The auction was held on 20-6-1958, and the plaintiff was tho highest bidder. Under Ex. A-7 the Official Receiver gavo an opportunity to the defendant to raise objections to the auction. The defendant filed her objections, Ex. A-10, disputing the jurisdiction of the Official Receiver to sell the suit extent in respect of whiich, she stated, she his already obtained a decree for specific performance. She requested the Official Receiver not to execute the sale-deed till she gets appropriate orders from Sub-Court, Bapatla, The Official Reciver gave time to the defendant to obtain orders from the Court; but, the defendant did not obtain any such orders, whereupon the Official Receiver confirmed the sale in favour of the plaintiff. A sale-deed was executed by him in favour of the plaintiff on 31-10-1969, registered on 3-11-1969. According to the plaintiff, possession of the suit extent was delivered to him on 16-11-1969. This is, however, disputed by the defendant.