BOBBA VARALAKSHMAMMA Vs. KOSARAJU JANNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These arise out of an application to execute the decree in O.S. No. 53 of 1935 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Masulipatam. It was a simple money decree. The properties of the judgment-debtor were attached and sold in a Court sale held-on the 2nd July, 1936. The decree-holder had obtained permission to bid and set off and his bid for Rs. 1,562 was accepted. The amount shown in the sale proclamation as due under the decree was Rs. 1,010. On the date of the sale he deposited into Court Rs. 390-8-0. On 11 July, 1936, he deposited a further amount of Rs. 161-8-0 which represented the balance payable by him to make up the difference between the amount for which he purchased and the amount realisable under the sale proclamation.

(2.) Another creditor of the judgment-debtor, who is the 1 respondent in the Civil Revision Petition, laid a claim for rateable distribution of the assets realised. It was ultimately found that Rs. 601-2-3 was due to her. On the 3 July itself the decree-holder evidently coming to know that there was a claim for rateable distribution filed a petition offering to deposit of Rs. 161-8-0 after giving effect to the set off and wanted the Court to let him know what further amount will have to be paid to make up the amount necessary to pay the other creditors by way of rateable distribution. The Court passed an order " petitioner may deposit only that amount required for payment to decree-holders who applied for and are entitled to rateable distribution of the assets." This order is dated 11 July, 1936 and no time was fixed for payment of the additional amount payable to the rateable decree-holders.

(3.) On the 1 August, 1936, the other creditor as well as the judgment-debtor filed two applications for setting aside the sale on the ground that the auction-purchaser decree-holder had not deposited the requisite amount payable for the purchase within 15 days from the date of the sale. It was also stated that there were other irregularities in the sale. On 17 October, 1936, the amount due to the other creditor was fixed at Rs. 601-2-3 and the balance of the amount due to the creditor entitled to share rateably in the assets realised by the sale was deposited by the decree-holder auction-purchaser on 22nd October, 1936. The learned District Munsiff, three years later, passed an order setting aside the sale on the ground that it was the duty of the auction-purchaser decree-holder to have deposited within 15 days the money payable to the other decree-holder entitled to a share rateably in the assets realised by the sale and as that was not done he set aside the sale. No evidence appears to have been let in with regard to the irregularities mentioned in the petition and the learned District Munsiff has not dealt with them. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge agree with the learned District Munsiff and dismissed the appeal.