PULLATA LAKSHMINARAYAN Vs. BAKKIDA RAMANNA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal is filed against the decree and judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Srikakulam confirming those of the District Munsif's Court Sompeta in O.S. No. 11 of 1949. The subject -matter of the suit is of the extent of 2 acres 10 cents of Government Zaroiti dry land described in the plaint schedule. It was originally owned by one Priya Chelamayya and others. They executed a mortgage deed in respect of the suit property in favour of Burla Yerrayya, the father of the 3rd Defendant. Burla Yerrayya filed O.S. No. 52 of 1938 on the file of the Court of the Distrit Munsif, Sompeta and obtained a preliminary decree therein. A final decree followed.

(2.) THE learned District Munsif and on appeal the learned Subordinate Judge rejected the claim and dismissed the suit. Hence the second appeal.

(3.) THIS principle was followed by Madhavan Nair J. in - 'Sorimuthu Pilai v. Muthukrishna Pillai' : AIR 1933 Mad 598 (E), where the learned Judge ruled that under Order 21, Rule 92, Code of Civil Procedure, where no application is made under Rules 89, 90 or 91 to set aside a valid sale, the Court is bound to confirm the sale and cannot refuse to do so on the ground that there was no subsisting decree at the time of the confirmation or on any other ground.