Skip to content


Meda Chinna Subbamma Vs. Papireddigari Chennayya Minor by His Guardian Ad Litem Naga Peddayya (Legal Representative) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1918)ILR41Mad467
AppellantMeda Chinna Subbamma
RespondentPapireddigari Chennayya Minor by His Guardian Ad Litem Naga Peddayya (Legal Representative)
Cases ReferredNadamuni Narayana Iyengar v. Veerabhadra Pillai I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- - 507 which held otherwise has been disapproved of in nadamuni narayana iyengar v......the code of civil procedure, such an order cannot be made on the analogy of section 144 unless the auction-purchaser was a party before the appellate court which set aside the sale in the proceedings instituted for setting it aside.3. the mere fact that the decree-holder was a party to those proceedings will not suffice as the court auction-purchaser is not the representative of the decree-holder. manicka udayan v. rajagopala pillai i.l.r. (1907) mad. 507 which held otherwise has been disapproved of in nadamuni narayana iyengar v. veerabhadra pillai i.l.r. (1911) mad. 417 to both of which decisions the present learned chief justice was a party.4. the munsif says, that the 'auction-purchaser need not at all be a party to any proceedings for confirmation of or setting aside the sale.' the.....
Judgment:

Sadasiva Ayyar, J.

1. Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot, in terms apply as no decree was varied or reversed but only an order under Order XXI, Rule 90, refusing to set aside a sale in execution, was reversed by the Appellate Court. '

2. Assuming that Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows an order for restitution in appropriate cases even though it does not fall under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such an order cannot be made on the analogy of Section 144 unless the auction-purchaser was a party before the Appellate Court which set aside the sale in the proceedings instituted for setting it aside.

3. The mere fact that the decree-holder was a party to those proceedings will not suffice as the Court auction-purchaser is not the representative of the decree-holder. Manicka Udayan v. Rajagopala Pillai I.L.R. (1907) Mad. 507 which held otherwise has been disapproved of in Nadamuni Narayana Iyengar v. Veerabhadra Pillai I.L.R. (1911) Mad. 417 to both of which decisions the present learned Chief Justice was a party.

4. The Munsif says, that the 'auction-purchaser need not at all be a party to any proceedings for confirmation of or setting aside the sale.' The petition for restitution does not expressly state that the Court auction-purchaser was a party to the proceedings taken to have the auction sale set aside. No records have been produced before us to establish that fact. We therefore cannot hold that Section 151 empowers the Court to pass an order for restitution against a person not shown to be a party to and so bound by the order of the Appellate Court setting aside the sale.

5. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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