Skip to content


Shiam Lal Vs. Jaswant Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1933All54; 145Ind.Cas.884
AppellantShiam Lal
RespondentJaswant Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....these two properties prove insufficient to discharge the decree, then only the third property in thok ganga ram should be sold. the appellant objector holds a mortgage over thok ganga ram along with other properties. his case was that the auction sale which has taken place was fraudulent and collusive and the property which was of a high value had been sold for a small price with the result that the decretal amount has not been discharged and his property has been ordered to be put up for sale. the court below held that inasmuch as the property which has been sold did not belong to shiam lal and he had no interest in that property he has no locus standi to apply under order 21, rule 90.2. it seems to us that the scope of rule 90, sub-rule (1) is very wide and the words 'whose interests.....
Judgment:

Sulaiman, C.J.

1. This is an objector's appeal from an order refusing to set aside a sale. The application has been dismissed on the preliminary ground that the applicant has no locus standi to maintain it and the merits have not been gone into. It appears that in the decree which is in execution there is clear provision that two items of properties in, Thok Net Ram and Thok Rup Singh should be sold in the first instance and that if the sale proceeds of these two properties prove insufficient to discharge the decree, then only the third property in Thok Ganga Ram should be sold. The appellant objector holds a mortgage over Thok Ganga Ram along with other properties. His case was that the auction sale which has taken place was fraudulent and collusive and the property which was of a high value had been sold for a small price with the result that the decretal amount has not been discharged and his property has been ordered to be put up for sale. The Court below held that inasmuch as the property which has been sold did not belong to Shiam Lal and he had no interest in that property he has no locus standi to apply under Order 21, Rule 90.

2. It seems to us that the scope of Rule 90, Sub-rule (1) is very wide and the words 'whose interests are affected by the sale' are comprehensive enough to include the present appellant. There is no doubt that he has no direct interest in the property which has been sold, but if a fraud has been perpetrated' and in collusion with the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder the property has has been sold for a very small amount a greater liability is cast on the property in Thok Ganga Ram over which the appellant holds a mortgage. His interests are therefore adversely affected by the sale and he would undoubtedly suffer by the alleged fraud or collusion. Our attention has been drawn to the cause of Bibi Mehdatunnissa v. Sheo Devi Singh A.I.R. 1931 Pat. 217, which is in point. We agree with the view expressed therein and hold that the appellant is a person whose interests are affected by the sale inasmuch as his property may not be liable to be sold if without any fraud or collusion the full price is fetched by the sale of the other items or at any rate the liability may be less than it is at present. We accordingly allow the appeal and setting aside the order of the Court below send the case back to that Court for disposal accordingly to law. We direct that L. Shiam Lal should have his costs of this appeal from Mt. Phul Kuer, the contesting respondent. The other respondents will bear their own costs. Costs incurred in the Court below will abide the result.


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