MUTHU KUMARASWAMI ROWTHAN MINDA NAYANAR Vs. KUPPUSAWMI AIYANGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is admitted that when the sale took place the order for stay made by this Court had not been communicated to the Subordinate Court.

(2.) We think the order only became effective "when communicated to the Subordinate Court. On this question we prefer to follow the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Bessesswari Chowdhurani V/s. Harro Sundar Mozumdar 1 C.W.N. 226 rather than in the later judgment in Hukam Chand Boid V/s. Kamala- nand Singh 33 C. 927 : 3 C.L.J. 67.

(3.) There is authority for the proposition that a sale in violation of an order for stay is an irregularity (wee Freeman on Execution, Articles 32,33), though we are not prepared to say that the view of the Subordinate Judge, that the sale was an irregularity, was wrong. We prefer to rest our judgment on the ground stated.