VARAPRASADA MURTHY Vs. P VEERAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of execution proceedings initiated by the auction-purchaser, the first respondent herein under Order 21, Rule 93 C. P. C. for recovery of the purchase money and other expenses from the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor, the petitioner and the second respondent respectively in the revision petition. The decree-holder and judgment-debtor are brothers. The decree-holder obtained three money decrees against his brothers in three suits in O.S.No. 17 of 1956, O.S No. 63/55 and O.S. No. 2 of 1956 on the file of the District Court, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. All the three decrees were compromise decrees creating a charge on three items of property belonging tc the judgment-debtor.

(2.) In execution of the decree in O S. No. 17 of 1956. the decree-holder brought item No. 1 of the charged property to sale, in E.P. No, 13 of 1960. The auction was held on 28-8-1961. The first respondent was the highest bidder for Rs. 13.000/- He deposited into the court the entire sale pries by 6-9-1961 as required under the conditions of sale The sale was posted for confirmation to 19-7-1962. While the matters stood thus, one Karri Mabalakshmi and Nookaraju, hereinafter referred to as 'Karri People' filed E.. No. 198 of 1961 on the file of the District Court under Order 21 Rule 89 C.P C. for setting aside the court sale. They deposited into the court Rs. 4.950/-representing the sale warrant amount, the poundage and solatium. The decree holder, the judgment-debtor and the auction-purchaser opposed the application.

(3.) The principal ground on which this application was opposed was that the Karri people had no existing interest in the property within the meaning of Order 2i Rule 89 C.P.C. The objection did not find favour with the learned District Judgeand E.A. No 198 of 1961 was dismissed on 17-7-1962. whereupon, the sale in favour of the first respondent was confirmed and a sale certificate Ex. A-1 was issued. Aggrieved against the said decision, Karri people preferred C.M.A. No. 336 of 1962 to this court. But since no stay was granted in the C.M.A. No. 336 of 1962 was allowed by this court on 6-9-1967 and the Karri people took back possession of the property in question on 15-3-1967 from the respondent No. 1. The first respondent then filed the E.A. out of which this revision petition arises on 17-7-1967 for recovery of purchase money and other expenses incurred by him.