LAWS(PVC)-1923-3-180

PAMIDIMARRI GNAMMA Vs. KETTIREDDI KRISHNA REDDI

Decided On March 15, 1923
PAMIDIMARRI GNAMMA Appellant
V/S
KETTIREDDI KRISHNA REDDI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the petitioners, judgment-debtors, against an order dismissing their petition under Order XXI, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) The majority of the grounds, on which the publication and conduct of the sale were impugned, were rightly held unsustainable by the lower Court because they either had been or might have been taken in the proceedings for framing proclamation, of which the petitioners had notice, and, so far as they were taken, were either not established or were not material. We, therefore, can confine ourselves to two points, (1) the lower Court's failure to enquire into the allegation that the sale was not proclaimed in the village, (2) its conclusion, adopted from a previous order, that no publication at the Collector's Office was required, because the property was not raiyatwari land.

(3.) That previous order is in fact material on both points, because as regards publicat on in the village also the conclusion in it was adopted, no further enquiry being held. It was passed on a previous petition by the present petitioners, Execution Application No. 71 dated 2nd April 1921 in which publication in two newspapers was asked for and also a postponement of the sale until 9 July 1921, apparently after the vacation. The sale had been fixed for 4 April 1921 and the petitioners object to gain time was sufficiently clear. In spite, however, of the decree-holder's opposition, referrred to in the diary in the record, to a postponement and his presumable readiness to support the sale in case of proceedings under Order XXI, Rule 90, the lower Court took the exceptional course of allowing the sale to continue, but at the same time holding an enquiry into the validity of the proclamations, concluding the sale only when that enquiry had ended in the decree-holder's favour. That enquiry included the taking of evidence as to the publication in the village, which had been denied in the affidavit accompanying the. petition; and the decision that the proclamation was duly published has been adopted in the order before us.