Skip to content


(Pandni) Viranna Vs. (Marudugula) Venkatarammayya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad232
Appellant(Pandni) Viranna
Respondent(Marudugula) Venkatarammayya and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....his order is that two items of property consisting of separate dwelling-houses should be sold simultaneously and he has also ordered that the sale shall take place before the equities of a bona fide purchaser have been settled. on the merits it is difficult to support this order. it certainly prejudices the estate to sell the two buildings simultaneously and it is unlikely that an adequate price will be realized when the equities in favour of the present appellant have not been determined. apart from this we do not think the order can stand. the petition was put in under section 68 of the provincial insolvency act by the sons of the insolvent. their father had already sold the property including their interest acting as their guardian during their minority. the sales have, no.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal against an order made by the District Judge of Godavari in Insolvency. His order is that two items of property consisting of separate dwelling-houses should be sold simultaneously and he has also ordered that the sale shall take place before the equities of a bona fide purchaser have been settled. On the merits it is difficult to support this order. It certainly prejudices the estate to sell the two buildings simultaneously and it is unlikely that an adequate price will be realized when the equities in favour of the present appellant have not been determined. Apart from this we do not think the order can stand. The petition was put in under Section 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act by the sons of the insolvent. Their father had already sold the property including their interest acting as their guardian during their minority. The sales have, no doubt, been declared void as against the Receiver but that does not show that they are not binding on the interests of the sons. The sons have no locus standi there. Under Section 68 that petition did not lie to the District Court and no appeal lies. The appeal will, therefore, be allowed and the petition of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 dismissed with costs of appellant here and of the Official Receiver in the lower Court.

2. The memorandum of objections must also be dismissed.

3. As a result Appeal against Order No. 75 of 1925 is also dismissed with costs.


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