Skip to content


Musammat Fakhran Vs. Rajab Ali Khan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915All160(1); 28Ind.Cas.948
AppellantMusammat Fakhran
RespondentRajab Ali Khan and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxi, rule 89 - attaching creditor, right of, to have sale set aside. - .....rule 89, to have the sale set aside. the courts below have held that she is not a person who is entitled to ask the court to set aside the sale. it is admitted that she does not own the property, the only question is whether she has any interest in it by virtue of any title acquired before the sale within the meaning of order xxi, rule 89. a person who has attached property may for some purposes be regarded as having an interest in it; for example, it has been held that an attaching creditor is entitled to redeem mortgaged property. but what is required to entitle the present applicant to ask the court to set aside a sale under rule 89 is an interest in the property by virtue of a title acquired before the sale. the applicant has acquired no title whatever to the property, i.....
Judgment:

Chamier, J.

1. I doubt whether this application for revision is maintainable at all; but assuming that it is maintainable I think it should be dismissed on the merits. Certain property was sold in execution of a decree. The applicant had attached the property before the sale took place and after the sale she made an application under Order XXI, Rule 89, to have the sale set aside. The Courts below have held that she is not a person who is entitled to ask the Court to set aside the sale. It is admitted that she does not own the property, The only question is whether she has any interest in it by virtue of any title acquired before the sale within the meaning of Order XXI, Rule 89. A person who has attached property may for some purposes be regarded as having an interest in it; for example, it has been held that an attaching creditor is entitled to redeem mortgaged property. But what is required to entitle the present applicant to ask the Court to set aside a sale under Rule 89 is an interest in the property by virtue of a title acquired before the sale. The applicant has acquired no title whatever to the property, I therefore, hold that she is not a person who has an interest in the property by virtue of a title acquired before the sale within the meaning of Rule 89 and, therefore, she is not entitled to ask the Court to set the sale aside. The application is dismissed with costs.


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