Skip to content


Subrahmania Ayyar Vs. Rangappa Kalakka Thola Udatar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy;Property
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1901)ILR24Mad307
AppellantSubrahmania Ayyar
RespondentRangappa Kalakka Thola Udatar
Cases ReferredKhiroda Moyee Dossee v. Golam Somdanee
Excerpt:
rent recovery act (madras) - act viii of 1865, section 33--sale of distrained property--bid for one item sufficient to meet arrears of rent--failure by bidder to complete purchase--re-sale of item with others--legality of sale--satisfaction of arrears. - - 2. it is contended that, because a bid equal to the amount of the arrears was made for a portion of the plaintiff's property which had been so distrained for arrears of rent, the landlord's claims was thereby satisfied under section 33 of act viii of 1865 though the amount bid was not paid; 562. the arrear is only satisfied by a sale when the amount bid is paid, till when the debt is still subsisting khiroda moyee dossee v......of the arrears was made for a portion of the plaintiff's property which had been so distrained for arrears of rent, the landlord's claims was thereby satisfied under section 33 of act viii of 1865 though the amount bid was not paid; and also that a subsequent sale of the rest of his property was illegal as the only remedy lay in. taking proceedings against the defaulting purchaser. we cannot agree with this contention see anandra v bapuji v. shekh baba i.l.r. 2 bom. 562. the arrear is only satisfied by a sale when the amount bid is paid, till when the debt is still subsisting khiroda moyee dossee v. golam somdanee 21 w.r. 149. notice to the plaintiff of the second sale was not necessary under section 39 of act viii of 1865.3. there was no allegation in the plaint nor proof that the.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff (appellant) seeks to set aside a sale of his immoveable property under a distress for rent.

2. It is contended that, because a bid equal to the amount of the arrears was made for a portion of the plaintiff's property which had been so distrained for arrears of rent, the landlord's claims was thereby satisfied under Section 33 of Act VIII of 1865 though the amount bid was not paid; and also that a subsequent sale of the rest of his property was illegal as the only remedy lay in. taking proceedings against the defaulting purchaser. We cannot agree with this contention see Anandra v Bapuji v. Shekh Baba I.L.R. 2 Bom. 562. The arrear is only satisfied by a sale when the amount bid is paid, till when the debt is still subsisting Khiroda Moyee Dossee v. Golam Somdanee 21 W.R. 149. Notice to the plaintiff of the second sale was not necessary under Section 39 of Act VIII of 1865.

3. There was no allegation in the plaint nor proof that the requirements of the law in regard to publication of the second sale were not complied with. Even if there were any irregularity in that; respect, we are of opinion that that would not be a sufficient ground for setting aside the sale.

4. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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