GUTTA LAKSHMINARASAMMA Vs. YALAMARTI SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the year 1936, the first respondent filed a suit to enforce the payment of a debt secured by a mortgage of the properties now in suit and other properties. On the 7 August, 1936, he obtained a preliminary decree, and a final decree was passed early in April, 1937. On the 7 July, 1942, the properties in suit were sold by the decree-holder in execution proceedings. The decree-holder himself bought all the items except one for the sum of Rs. 2,800. The remaining item was bought by the second respondent for Rs. 2,500. On the 15th July, 1942, the judgment-debtor conveyed these properties to the appellant for the sum of Rs. 200. It is Alleged that the conveyance was made in pursuance of an agreement for sale entered into on the 25 October, 1939. On the 30 July, 1942, the appellant paid into Court the Rs. 2,800 and the Rs. 2,500 with the five per cent, solatium required by Order 21, Rule 89, Civil Procedure Code and asked that the sales be set aside. The District Judge held that the appellant was not a person holding an interest in the properties within the meaning of Rule 89 and refused to set aside the sales. The appeal is from his decision.

(2.) In Sundaram V/s. Mausa Mavuthar , a Full Bench of this Court held that a purchaser of property sold by the Court in execution proceedings was precluded from applying under the rule; in other words, a person buying property from a judgment-debtor after a sale in execution had taken place was not within the rule. The question of whether such a purchaser should be allowed to apply was considered by the Civil Justice Committee which sat in 1924- 25 and the Committee made this recommendation: We would, therefore, suggest in the interests of the decree-holders themselves that Order 21, Rule 89, should be so modified as to allow any person claiming any interest in the property sold at the time of the sale or at the time of the petition or acting for or in the interest of such a person to apply and get the sale set aside.

(3.) It was in pursuance of this recommendation that this Court amended Rule 89 in order that a person buying from a judgment-debtor may be allowed to apply under it for an order setting aside the sale. The amendment achieves its object. The Full Bench decision in Sundaram v. Mausa Mavuthar was given long before the amendment and no longer applies.