Skip to content


Sant Lal and anr. Vs. Ramji Das and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1887)ILR9All167
AppellantSant Lal and anr.
RespondentRamji Das and ors.
Excerpt:
sale in execution of decree - setting aside sale--incumbrance--'saleable interest'--civil procedure code, section 313. - .....the probable value of the property, is not sufficient to sustain a plea that the person whose property is sold, has no saleable interest in the property under section 313. there is always the equity of redemption remaining. what i understand that section to contemplate is, that either the judgment-debtor had no interest at all, or that the interest was not one he could-sell. the fact that the property may fetch little or nothing, if sold, does not affect the question.4. we have been referred to naharmul v. sadut ali, 8 cal., l. r., 468, but that case is not on all fours with the case before us, which is more in accord with a subsequent case--protap chunder chuckerbutty v. pa(sic)moty i. l. r., 9 cal., 506, which the judges distinguish from naharmul v. sadut ali, 8 cal., l. r.,.....
Judgment:

Oldfield, J.

1. This is an appeal from an order refusing to set aside a sale, and made with reference to Section 313 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. The sale was of half a house belonging to the judgment-debtors, which was sold in execution of a decree for Rs. 8,937, and was bought by the appellants for Rs. 5,751. The appellants ask that the sale be set aside, on the ground that the judgment-debtors had no saleable interest in the property, there being a mortgage on the property' amounting to a sum exceeding its market-value.

3. In my opinion this is no ground for setting a sale aside under Section 313. The fact that the property is in cumbered, even when the incumbrance covers the probable value of the property, is not sufficient to sustain a plea that the person whose property is sold, has no saleable interest in the property under Section 313. There is always the equity of redemption remaining. What I understand that section to contemplate is, that either the judgment-debtor had no interest at all, or that the interest was not one he could-sell. The fact that the property may fetch little or nothing, if sold, does not affect the question.

4. We have been referred to Naharmul v. Sadut Ali, 8 Cal., L. R., 468, but that case is not on all fours with the case before us, which is more in accord with a subsequent case--Protap Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Pa(sic)moty I. L. R., 9 Cal., 506, which the Judges distinguish from Naharmul v. Sadut Ali, 8 Cal., L. R., 468.

5. For these reasons I would dismiss this appeal with costs.

Brodhurst, J.

6. I concur.


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