DHANAMMAL Vs. VEERARAGHAVA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied under Order 21 Rule 89 Civil Procedure Code to have the sale of certain properties set aside on depositing the amount specified in the proclamation of sale plus 5 per cent of the purchase-money. The District Munsif and the District Judge to whom she appealed both disallowed her application but On different grounds. The District Munsif's reason for dismissing her application was that she had previously applied to pay the amount due to the decree holder before the sale was held, and that he then rejected her application because she had no locus standi to pay the amount. The District Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner having claimed the property previously in a claim petition under Order 21, Rule 58, and that claim petition having been dismissed, her only right was to bring a suit within one year to establish her title.

(2.) The property sold in Court auction originally belonged to Swaminadha Mudali. The petitioner claims as a legatee under a will of Papammal, who purchased the property from Swaminadha Mudali in 1907. In 1911 when the property was attached by another creditor of Swaminadha Mudali, Papammal put in a claim petition and having failed therein, she instituted a suit and established her title in Second Appeal. Again the property was attached in 1915 by another creditor and upon a further claim petition being put in by her in 1915 and being dismissed, she brought a second suit which was dismissed for default. The appellant also preferred a claim petition in 1920 which was dismissed as too late and upon the sale being adjourned, she filed a second application on 9-2-1921 which was dismissed on 23-3-1921.

(3.) That being the history of the case, we must see whether the orders of the lower Courts can be supported for the reasons given therein. The District Munsif observed that the order passed on the petitioner's application before the sale was binding on her. He describes this petition as a similar one. The earlier application was one made under no definite provision of law, to have the sale stopped on payment of the decree amount, It may have been treated as an application under Order 21, Rule 2 for adjustment of the decree. The Court held that the petitioner had no locus standi to make the application and that money could not be received from her. There is no connection between her application made after the sale had taken place as a person holding an interest in the property sold to have the sale set aside under Order 21 Rule 89 and the application to pay the decree amount before the sale took place. The District Munsif has not decided that the petitioner is a person not holding any interest in the property either in his previous order or in the present order and so the previous order cannot operate as resjudicata to prevent her making the present application.