Skip to content


Keshab Deo Vs. B. Rajendra Kumar Bhattacharji, Official Receiver and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935All687; 155Ind.Cas.563
AppellantKeshab Deo
RespondentB. Rajendra Kumar Bhattacharji, Official Receiver and ors.
Excerpt:
- - 2. the view taken by the learned district judge is perfectly correct. 3. the learned advocate for the appellant contended that section 68, insolvency act, allows an appeal to the court from an order of the receiver, and that it was, open to the court to 'confirm, reverse or modify the act or decision complained of......with the endorsement that the addressee had refused to take it. thereupon the receiver executed a sale-deed in favour of ganeshi and had it registered. this was done under the orders of the court. it now appears that ram prasad, who had offered the highest bid on 7th may 1933, was the agent of the appellant and entered into the transaction of sale on behalf of his master and not himself. the appellant then applied to the district judge insisting on the sale made to him on 7th may 1933, and in the alternative offering to purchase the property for rs. 1,800. he prayed that the sale-deed in favour of ganeshi he cancelled. the learned district, judge dismissed this application on the ground that a registered sale-deed having been executed in favour of ganeshi lal could not be set aside by.....
Judgment:

Niamatullah, J.

1. This is an appeal from the order passed by the learned District Judge, Aligarh, in the exercise of his jurisdiction as Judge of the Insolvency Court. One Ganga Saran was adjudged insolvent. The Official Receiver proceeded to sell a house belonging to the insolvent. On 7th May 1933, he held a public auction and one Ram Prasad offered the highest bid of Rs. 775. He deposited one-fourth of the price on that day and the three-fourths on 16th May 1933. The Receiver duly acknowledged receipt of these sums. In the meantime' on 13th May 1933, Ganeshi made an offer of Rs. 1,025 to the Receiver, who referred the matter to the Court, and the Court directed that the property should be sold to the highest bider. The Receiver sent a notice by registered post to Ram Prasad intimating the fact that Ganeshi had offered Rs. 1,025. The letter was returned with the endorsement that the addressee had refused to take it. Thereupon the Receiver executed a sale-deed in favour of Ganeshi and had it registered. This was done under the orders of the Court. It now appears that Ram Prasad, who had offered the highest bid on 7th May 1933, was the agent of the appellant and entered into the transaction of sale on behalf of his master and not himself. The appellant then applied to the District Judge insisting on the sale made to him on 7th May 1933, and in the alternative offering to purchase the property for Rs. 1,800. He prayed that the sale-deed in favour of Ganeshi he cancelled. The learned District, Judge dismissed this application on the ground that a registered sale-deed having been executed in favour of Ganeshi Lal could not be set aside by him. The present appeal has been preferred from that order.

2. The view taken by the learned District Judge is perfectly correct. The regularity of the Receiver's action in entering into the transaction of sale to Ganeshi after having accepted the purchase money from the appellant and the validity of the order of the Court permitting the Receiver to sell to Ganeshi cannot be considered at this stage. The fact remains that a registered sale-deed exists, and that Ganeshi, who has paid the full purchase money, has a vested interest in the house so long as the sale is not set aside. It is open to the appellant to impugne the act of the receiver and attack the sale-deed in favour of Ganeshi in such manner as he may be advised. The learned District Judge, sitting in insolvency proceedings could not have summarily cancelled, the sale-deed in favour of Ganeshi.

3. The learned advocate for the appellant contended that Section 68, Insolvency Act, allows an appeal to the Court from an order of the Receiver, and that it was, open to the Court to 'confirm, reverse or modify the act or decision complained of.' Even if the Court had power to reverse or modify such acts of the Receiver as have had the effect of vesting rights in third persons which, I doubt, I do not think the lower Court should have granted the relief prayed for by the appellant under Section 68. In the circumstances of the case the matter in controversy between the appellant on the one side and the Receiver and Ganeshi on the other cannot be decided except in proceedings admitting of detailed pleadings and evidence. In such a case the Court should leave the controversy to be settled in more appropriate proceedings granting leave, if necessary, for a suit against the 'Receiver and the third person claiming rights under the sale-deed. In the view of the case I have taken, this appeal fails, and is dismissed with costs.


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