RAMSARAN SAH Vs. DEONANDAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been filed by the decree-holders-auction -purchasers against the orders of the Courts below setting aside sales held on 14-12-1937 in Execution Case No. 570 of 1937 and on 10-7-1944 in Execution Case No. 216 of 1944.

(2.) The facts, shortly stated, are that the appellants had obtained a mortgage decree in Mortgage Suit No. 104 of 1932 against the opposite party 3rd party and the applicants respondents, who were then minors under the guardianship of Mr. Ata Hussain, Pleader, guardian-ad-litem. In the first execution case, the appellants had impleaded the applicants respondents under the guardianship of their father, and satisfied a part of their decree by sale of the mortgaged properties. As the decree was not satisfied in full, steps were taken for a money decree under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P. C. In that proceeding, the applicants respondents were impleaded as majors, and, in execution of the said decree, properties belonging to the applicants and their father were sold and purchased by the decree-holder's appellants on the date mentioned above. It is said that the applicants Nos. 1 and 2 attained majority in 1949 and 1948, respectively, and filed the present applications for setting aside the two sales on 8-6-1950, under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. and Section 47 of the Code, on the ground that the sales were void inasmuch as no notice was either issued or served upon the applicants who were then minors under the guardianship of the aforesaid pleader, and that all the notices were fraudulently sup-pressed.

(3.) The appellants decree-holders refuted the allegations of the applicants, and submitted that the applications were barred by limitation, that notices under Order 21, Rule 22, of the Code had been properly served on them, and that these applicants had full knowledge of the proceedings under Order 34, Rule 6 of the Code. They denied that the processes in the execution cases had been fraudulently suppressed. They also submitted that, after auction sales, the auction-purchasers had obtained delivery of possession and had been coming in possession to the knowledge of everybody concerned. It was further said that the father of the applicants had filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code on his own behalf as well as on behalf of these applicants, but the application had been dismissed.