Skip to content


Chulhi Upadhya Vs. Baddri Upadhya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1921All225; 62Ind.Cas.672
AppellantChulhi Upadhya
RespondentBaddri Upadhya and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 68 - allah-abad high court general rules of 1911, chap. iv, rule 9--execution of decree--decree sent to collector--procedure irregular--suit to contest collector's order, maintainability of. - - we are not concerned with and have not got to decide whether the order of the collector was a good order or a bad order......it was brought to his notice that the bid was mush less than the property was worth. thereupon the collector passed the following order, 're sale will take place on the 20th june 1914 after proclamation; unless there is a higher bid the sale of the 20th march 1913 will stand.' objection was taken to that order and an appeal was made to the commissioner. the commissioner dismissed the appeal, hence this suit. the relief sought by the plaintiff is, 'the sale dated the 20th of march 1913 be confirmed and a decree awarding possession over a one anna share in mauza khola jhonga, tappa ghosi, pargana bansi (east), district basti, and also mesne profits, may be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.' the first court decreed the suit. the lower appellate court has dismissed.....
Judgment:

1. The facts of this appeal are somewhat complicated but the appeal may be decided on a short point. In execution of a decree certain Zemindari property was attached and as it was ancestral property the record was sent to the Collector of the District for execution. He directed a sale to be held. The officer reported to him that the highest bid was Rs. 1,005. The Collector accepted that bid, but before the sale was confirmed it was brought to his notice that the bid was mush less than the property was worth. Thereupon the Collector passed the following order, 'Re sale will take place on the 20th June 1914 after proclamation; unless there is a higher bid the sale of the 20th March 1913 will stand.' Objection was taken to that order and an appeal was made to the Commissioner. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal, hence this suit. The relief sought by the plaintiff is, 'The sale dated the 20th of March 1913 be confirmed and a decree awarding possession over a one anna share in Mauza Khola Jhonga, Tappa Ghosi, Pargana Bansi (East), District Basti, and also mesne profits, may be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.' The first Court decreed the suit. The lower Appellate Court has dismissed it. It seems to us that the decree of the lower Appellate Court was right. We are not concerned with and have not got to decide whether the order of the Collector was a good order or a bad order. Under Rule 9 of Chapter IV of the General Rules passed by this Court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 'A Civil Court has no power to interfere with the procedure of a Collector in the execution of a decree which has been transferred to him under Section 68 of Act No. V of 1908.'

2. In this view the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs which in this Court will include fees on the higher scale.


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