KOIL KANDADAI AMMAN RAMANUJACHARIAR Vs. CONJEEVARAM HOGSENPET DANARAKSHAKA NIDHI LTD, BY ITS PRESIDENT, MESRIRANGACHARIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised by this civil revision petition can be stated shortly. It is whether in proceedings under Order XXI, Rule 91 of the Civil Procedure Code, the person alleged by the auction-purchaser to be the real owner of the property sold is a necessary party. The lower Courts have hold that, .such person, the petitioner here,.- must be impleaded, disallowing the Objection which he made before them.

(2.) Their decisions are supported only by the argument ab inconvenienti : and it is, no doubt, true that the petitioner could not have obtained in a regular suit a fuller enquiry .than has been held. They have, however, overlooked the fact that he has been prejudiced in respect of his right of appeal. For against an order under Order XXI, Rule 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, there is one appeal only, whilst, if petitioner had proceeded by suit (whether or not after claim or objection proceedings), second appeal would have been open to him. There is no reason for supposing that he cart be deprived of this advantage by the act that his title was disputed during the short period between the holding and confirmation of the sale.

(3.) (sic) (check whole para)The material provision of law, the proviso j Order XXI, Rule 92(2) of the Civil Pro-iduro Code, can in fact be interpreted con-stently with this objection. It provides for itice to "all persons affected by" the applition. Huh the application will not affect a stranger to the proceedings who claims the property, since the relief contemplated in it, is only the return to the purchaser of his money. There is nothing in the proviso or elsewhere which entails that a claimant to the property need be affected, before an attempt is made to take delivery-of it from him or some person in possession under him.