N LAKSHMI Vs. K RAGHAVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed against an order passed in a petition under Order XXI Rule 90 and Sec. 47 C.P.C. dismissing the application to set aside the sale held on January 23, 1983 in E.P. 35/71 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kavali. An extent of Ac. 5-00 of wet land was sold on January 23, 1983. The appellant filed E.A 14/86 to set aside the above sale. The facts not in dispute are that one D. Seetamma, Judgment-debtor No. 6 is the owner of the petition schedule property. She died in 1971. Before her death she bequeathed by a will dated October 14, 1969 this Ac. 5-00 of wet land to the appellant. This properly is also one ot the properties sought to be proceeded against. Consequent on the death of the deceased, an application E.A. 153/82 was filed under Sec. 50 C.P.C. to bring the appellant on record as a successor in-interest of the deceased judgment-debtor. The appellant was brought on record without any notice to her and the property was sold on January 23, 1983 at the rate of Rs. 2,000/-per acre without any notice. Assailing the validity of the sale so held the appeal has been filed.

(2.) The contention of Sri Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant is that by operation of Order XXI Rule 22 read with Sec. 50 (1) C.P.C., notice to the appellant is mandatory. No notice was issued and therefore the sale is void and the Court below erred in law in holding that the appellant's father was representing all the judgment-debtors and the representation by him is sufficient compliance with Order 21 Rule 22 and Sec. 50 (3) C.P.C. This finding is in the teeth of Order XXI Rule 22 and it is contrary to Sec. 50 (1) C.P.C. find force in the contention.

(3.) Sri Raniana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents has resisted the above contention. He argued that it is the case of the appellant that she was a student prosecuting her studies elsewhere and her father was representing her in the legal proceedings. Therefore, though the court has given a finding that no notice was given, in view of the fact that her father had represented in the execution proceedings, that is sufficient compliance. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Court below is valid in law.