Skip to content


Genda Mal Vs. Narsingh Das - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1929All553
AppellantGenda Mal
RespondentNarsingh Das
Excerpt:
- .....being non-ancestral the civil court accepted the estimate of the value of the property made by the decree-holder at rs. 500. being a revenue-paying property the sale was conducted by an officer of the revenue court. the judgment-debtor by some process unknown to law got the revenue court to re-value the property and the tahsildar estimated the value to be rupees 1,887-13-0. it is said that the decree-holder purchased the property. the offer made to him was that he should buy the property at the estimated price of rs. 1,887-13-0. it is also alleged that he accepted this offer. but curiously enough the amin entered in the report about the sale a remark to the effect that the decree-holder had purchased the property for rs. 1,358. in due course the decree-holder objected to the sale which.....
Judgment:

1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal. Certain property was advertised for sale and being non-ancestral the civil Court accepted the estimate of the value of the property made by the decree-holder at Rs. 500. Being a revenue-paying property the sale was conducted by an officer of the revenue Court. The judgment-debtor by some process unknown to law got the revenue Court to re-value the property and the Tahsildar estimated the value to be Rupees 1,887-13-0. It is said that the decree-holder purchased the property. The offer made to him was that he should buy the property at the estimated price of Rs. 1,887-13-0. It is also alleged that he accepted this offer. But curiously enough the amin entered in the report about the sale a remark to the effect that the decree-holder had purchased the property for Rs. 1,358. In due course the decree-holder objected to the sale which was said to have been held and by which he is said to have purchased the property. His case was that he had agreed to purchase the property at the estimated value put down by him and which had been accepted by the civil Court, namely, Rs. 500 and therefore if the sale be held to have taken place as recorded by the amin for Rupees 1,358 then great loss would result to the decree-holder. The learned Subordinate Judge under Order 21, Rule 92, dismissed the objection and confirmed the sale.

2. The decree-holder went up in appeal before the District Judge who set aside the sale and directed the property to be resold. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed and the preliminary objection is that under Section 104(2), Civil P.C. no second appeal lies against an order in appeal under Order 43 of the Code. We must accept this contention as in our opinion the order of the Court of first instance was an order passed under Order 21, Rule 92, Civil P.C. and the appeal was an appeal under Order 43. Dr. Agarwala has asked us to treat this appeal as an application for revision but we cannot accept his contention. The appeal is dismissed but we make no order as to costs.


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