REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

YADAVALLI SURYAKANTHAMMA Appellant

V/S

MADDIPATLA DORAYYA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MOHIDEEN IBRAHIM V. MAHAMED MEERA LEVVAI [REFERRED TO]
HIRA L ILR(ALL) V. KARIM-UN-NISA [REFERRED TO]
DURGAPRASAD V. RAMCHARAN [REFERRED TO]
NAGENDRANATH GHOSH V. SAMBHU PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
RISHIKESH LAW V. MANIK MOLLA [REFERRED TO]
MUTHUKUMARASWAMI PILLAI V. MUTHUSWAMI THEVAN [REFERRED TO]
BAHADUR SINGH V. RAMPHAL [REFERRED TO]
MAUNG AYE MAUNG V. SCOTT,CO. [REFERRED TO]
MAUNG NAUNG V. MAUNG BA GYI [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNADHA RAO V. BASAVAYYA [REFERRED TO]
MACHA KOUNDAN V. KOTTORA KOUNDAN [REFERRED TO]
MEHR CHAND V. MILKHI RAM [REFERRED TO]
ABHINASH CHANDRA V. MATILAL MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
SHADI RAM V. AMIN CHAND [REFERRED TO]
RAM TAHUL SINGH V. BISESWAR LALL SAHOO [REFERRED TO]
SIVARAMA V. RAMA [REFERRED TO]
ACHAYAPPAN V. NARAYANA [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARA GOPALAN V. VENKATAVARADA AYYANGAR [REFERRED TO]
PARVATHI AMMAL V. GOVINDASAMI PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
MATHAI V. OOMMEN [REFERRED TO]
NANNULAL V. BHAGWANDAS [REFERRED TO]
THIRUMALAISAMI NAIDU V. SUBRAMANIAN CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
SUBBUREDDI V. PONNAMBALA REDDI [REFERRED TO]
JURANU MAHAMED V. JATHI MAHAMED [REFERRED TO]
ABINASH CHANDRA MONDAL VS. MATILAL MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
KUNJIKAVU AMMA VS. JANAKI AMMA [REFERRED TO]
BAPPU RAWTHER ABDUL KASSIM RAWTHER VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
SANTIMAPPA VENKAPPA V. BALBHIM CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY OF HEBSUR [REFERRED TO]
THAKAR LAL VS. NATHULAL [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA KUMAR SINGH VS. SRICHAND MAHATA [REFERRED TO]
MANGAL VS. MATHURA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
AMAR NATH VS. FIRM CHOTELAL DURGAPRASAD [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that calls for decision by this Full Bench is whether it is open to a Court auction-purchaser, on finding that the judgment-debtor has no saleable interest in the property sold, to sue for a refund of the purchase money on the ground of failure of consideration.

(2.) The facts leading up to this litigation may be briefly stated. The appellant obtained a money decree against the second defendant on 3-3-1950 in the court of the District Munsif, Eluru, and in enforcement of the decree, brought Ac. 1-92 cents of land to sale in November 1950. The sale was recorded on 2-5-1951. Meanwhile, the defendant carried an appeal against that decree and succeeded in getting that judgment set aside and the matter remanded to the trial Court. Pending the re-trial of the suit, the judgment-debtor executed a registered gift deed of this property in favour of his daughter and son-in law.

(3.) On re-trail, the suit was decreed and, in execution of the decree, this land was re-attached and was being brought to sale. At that stage, the donees intervened with a claim based upon the gift deed. The claim petition was dismissed as having been filed too late. On the same date, the sale was held. The respondent, who knew about this gift which was mentioned in the proclamation of sale and also of the claim proceedings, purchased the property for Rs. 4,275.00 and the sale was confirmed on 19-2-1953. The sale certificate was issued in his favour. Shortly thereafter, the defeated claimants brought a suit to set aside the summary order. Notwithstanding the objection of the respondent and the appellant that the gift was a nominal transaction brought into existence to defeat the creditors the suit was decreed.

Click here to view full judgment.

YADAVALLI SURYAKANTHAMMA Vs. MADDIPATLA DORAYYA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address