MATHONKANDI KANNAN Vs. THAYYIL PAKKUTTI AVVULLA HAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this appeal is whether an application under Order 21, Rule 95 for delivery of property by a decree-holder who has purchased the property in execution of his own decree is a step-in-aid of execution within the meaning of the expression in Art. 182, Clause 5 of the third column of the Limitation Act. The argument of Mr. Krishna Wariar for the appellant may be summarised under the following heads: 1. Lakshmanan Chettiar V/s. Kannammal. (1900) ILR 24 Mad 185, which is a case in point, is opposed to the decisions before and after it.

(2.) The expression " purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree " in Art. 138 of the Limitation Act is equally applicable to a decree-holder who purchases property in execution of his own decree as well as to a person who is a stranger to the decree, and therefore the former should be held to occupy the same position as the latter in regard to applications made after the Court sale.

(3.) When the judgment-debtor's property is purchased in Court sale by the judgment-creditor the decree is wholly or partially satisfied and thereafter there is no decree to be executed to the extent of the value of the property sold.