LAWS(PVC)-1922-1-124

KONDINE KAMAYA Vs. KOVIDENA RAMAMMA

Decided On January 20, 1922
KONDINE KAMAYA Appellant
V/S
KOVIDENA RAMAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection has been raised that no second appeal lies. We are inclined to think that this is a good objection, and that the failure to give the petitioners notice before the sale though they had attained majority between the date of decree, and the date of execution is a mere irregularity in publishing the sale which would bring the application within Rule 90.

(2.) But it is unnecessary to decide this point as, assuming that the application can be treated as one under Section 47, it was clearly out of time under Art. 106 of the Limitation Act, hot having been made within one month of the sale.

(3.) For the proposition that Art.- 166 and not Art. 181 will apply even to applications which fall under Section 47, there is ample authority in Muthiah Chetiiar V/s. Bawa Sahib 26 Ind. Cas. 46 : 27 M.L.J. 605 : 1 L.W. 969.; Thekkedath Neelu Neithiar V/s. Subramania Moothan 53 Ind. Cas. 809 : (1919) M.W.N. 897 : 11 L.W. 59; Satish Chandra V/s. Nishi Chandra Dutta 54 Ind. Cas. 431 : 46 C. 975 and Pasumarti Payidanna V/s. Ganti Latishminarasamma 29 Ind. Cas. 314 : 38 M. 1076 : 28 M.L.J. 525.