Skip to content


Sambasiva Ayyar Vs. Vydinadasami and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR25Mad535
AppellantSambasiva Ayyar
RespondentVydinadasami and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - act xiv of 1882, section 307--default of purchaser at court-sale to pay full amount--forfeiture. - - the forfeiture is imposed by the code in order to prevent waste of the court's time in conducting re-sales in consequence of defaults like the present.1. the words of the section 307 of the code of civil procedure are clear and imperative, and must be given effect to.2. the fact that the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor do not ask for a re-sale but consent to the original sale being allowed to stand, is no reason why the government should forego the forfeiture. the forfeiture is imposed by the code in order to prevent waste of the court's time in conducting re-sales in consequence of defaults like the present.3. there was nothing, we may add, so far as appears, to have prevented the purchaser from sending the money to the court within time even if he was unable to attend in person.
Judgment:

1. The words of the Section 307 of the Code of Civil Procedure are clear and imperative, and must be given effect to.

2. The fact that the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor do not ask for a re-sale but consent to the original sale being allowed to stand, is no reason why the Government should forego the forfeiture. The forfeiture is imposed by the Code in order to prevent waste of the Court's time in conducting re-sales in consequence of defaults like the present.

3. There was nothing, we may add, so far as appears, to have prevented the purchaser from sending the money to the Court within time even if he was unable to attend in person.


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