Skip to content


Koppaka Chandrayya Vs. F.W.R. Robertson, Trustee to the Maharaja of Vizianagaram and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in52Ind.Cas.641
AppellantKoppaka Chandrayya
RespondentF.W.R. Robertson, Trustee to the Maharaja of Vizianagaram and ors.
Cases ReferredBalakrishna Udayar v. Vasudeva Aiyar
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 115, order xxi, rules 89, 90 - execution of decree--sale--application by prior vendee of portion of property to set aside sale, maintainability of--order dismissing application--revision--high court, interference by. - - even apart from this view i fail to see what question of jurisdiction there can be for interference under section 115 of the code of civil procedure......be set aside. the lower appellate court held, following the decision of this court in karunakara menon v. krishna menon 27 ind. cas. 952 : 28 m.l.j. 262 : 2 l.w. 196 : 39 m.k 429 that as the petitioner paid only a portion of the amount he is not entitled to ask that the auction should be set aside. that decision has been sought to be distinguished before me. in my opinion the lower appellate court is right in holding that the present case is covered by the authority cited by the lower appellate court. even apart from this view i fail to see what question of jurisdiction there can be for interference under section 115 of the code of civil procedure. as was pointed out by the judicial committee in balakrishna udayar v. vasudeva aiyar 40 ind. cas. 650 : 19 bom. l.r. 715 : (1917) m.w.n......
Judgment:

Seshagiri Aiyar, J.

1. In this case the petitioner purchased the property privately from the judgment-debtor. Other persons had purchased portions of the property before him; the 2nd counter-petitioner is an auction-purchaser. The contention of the petitioner is that as he himself and the previous vendees have paid the full amount of the decree the sale should be set aside. The lower Appellate Court held, following the decision of this Court in Karunakara Menon v. Krishna Menon 27 Ind. Cas. 952 : 28 M.L.J. 262 : 2 L.W. 196 : 39 M.k 429 that as the petitioner paid only a portion of the amount he is not entitled to ask that the auction should be set aside. That decision has been sought to be distinguished before me. In my opinion the lower Appellate Court is right in holding that the present case is covered by the authority cited by the lower Appellate Court. Even apart from this view I fail to see what question of jurisdiction there can be for interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As was pointed out by the Judicial Committee in Balakrishna Udayar v. Vasudeva Aiyar 40 Ind. Cas. 650 : 19 Bom. L.R. 715 : (1917) M.W.N. 628 : 6 L.W. 501 : 22 C.W.N. 50 : 11 Bur. L.T. 48 : 44 I.A. 26 the mere fact that a wrong decision has been given on a question of law would not enable an Appellate Court to interfere with the order of the Court below under Section 115. For both these reasons I uphold the judgment of the Court below and dismiss the petition with costs of the 2nd respondent.


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