Skip to content


P. Venkanna Chetti and anr. Vs. B. Apparao Naidu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberA.A.O. No. 58 of 1955
Judge
Reported inAIR1959AP666
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 21, Rule 34(3)
AppellantP. Venkanna Chetti and anr.
RespondentB. Apparao Naidu
Appellant AdvocateE. Venkatesam and ;P. Kodandaramayya, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateD.V. Reddi Pantulu and ;T.V. Narasimhamurty, Advs.
Excerpt:
.....decree of specific performance against appellant for non-execution of sale - appellant filed draft sale deed - court not considering appellant's draft deed and objections - petition filed for considering objections under order 21 rule 34 - held, court bound to consider objections filed as non-compliance vitiates order. - all india services act, 1951.sections 8 & 11 & a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control rules, 1961, rule 5: [v.v.s. rao, g. yethirajulu & g. bhavani prasad, jj] refusal by landlord to receive rent - deposit of rent in court - held, a tenant has the option to take recourse to section 8 in case of refusal or evasion by landlord to receive rent and if landlord were to not name a bank or refuse even the money order of rent, the tenant can deposit the rent in..........appeal is against the order of the subordinate judge of visakhapatnam, accepting a draft of the sale deed filed by the respondent in the following circumstances.2. the respondent obtained a decree against the appellant for specific performance of an agreement to sell certain properties. as the appellant failed to execute a sale deed pursuant to the direction of the court in the decree, the respondent prepared a draft of the document and put it into court as required by order xxi, rule 34 of the civil procedure code. the court had the draft served on the appellant together with a notice requiring his objections to be made within a particular time. the appellant seems to have filed objections to the draft.when the matter came on for hearing, the trial court called upon the counsel for.....
Judgment:

Chandra Reddy, C.J.

1. This appeal is against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Visakhapatnam, accepting a draft of the sale deed filed by the respondent in the following circumstances.

2. The respondent obtained a decree against the appellant for specific performance of an agreement to sell certain properties. As the appellant failed to execute a sale deed pursuant to the direction of the Court in the decree, the respondent prepared a draft of the document and put it into Court as required by Order XXI, Rule 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court had the draft served on the appellant together with a notice requiring his objections to be made within a particular time. The appellant seems to have filed objections to the draft.

When the matter came on for hearing, the trial Court called upon the counsel for the appellant to point out the objectionable clauses and the draft was also handed over to him. Instead of carrying out this direction of the Court, he filed another draft sale deed. This conduct of the appellant seems to have infuriated the Subordinate Judge and without considering the objections raised by the appellant, he accepted the draft filed by the decree-holder and rejected the draft filed by the appellant. It is this order of the Subordinate Judge that is under appeal.

3. It is seen from Order XXI, Rule 34 (3) that where the judgment-debtor objects to the draft and his objections are reduced to writing, the Court, has to make an order approving or altering the draft, as it thinks fit. This implies the consideration of the objections filed by the judgment-debtor. An order which does not take into account the objections raised on behalf of the judgment-debtor cannot be deemed to be a legal or valid one. The provisions requiring the Court in make an order approving or altering the draft --which by necessary implication involves the consideration of the objections -- being a mandatory one, non-compliance with the provision vitiates the order.

Hence the order should be set aside and thetrial Court directed to consider the objections. Asit was the conduct of the appellant that was responsible for the order of the Court, this is a fitcase in which he should be directed to bear thecosts of this application in the trial Court. In thisCourt the parties will bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //