R RAJAMMA Vs. AVULA SARASWATHAMMA
LAWS(APH)-1972-7-26
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on
July 17,1972
R.RAJAMMA
Appellant
VERSUS
AVULA SARASWATHAMMA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RAGUNATH SAMI V. GOPAUJRAO [REFERRED TO]RADHI V. BUTA MAL [REFERRED TO]
KAMAKHYA DUTT RAM V. SHYAM LAL [REFERRED TO]
KACHAMALAI V. SHAHAJI RAJAH [REFERRED TO]
K.RAMAKRISHNA DAS V. S.PURNACHANDRA RAO [REFERRED TO]
MOHANLAL GOENKA VS. BENOY KISHNA MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
JANAK RAJ VS. GURDIAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
HUKUMCHAND VS. BANSILAL [REFERRED TO]
MEDABOYINA SEETHANNA VS. ARUBANDI SANKARA LAKSHMI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
S T M VYRAVAN CHETTIAR VS. R M RAYALU AYYAR NAGASWAMI AYYAR AND CO [REFERRED TO]
ARUNACHALA CHETTIAR VS. VADLA KOUNDAN [REFERRED TO]
PETHAPERUMAL AMBALAM VS. CHIDAMBARAM CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMONIAN NADAR PADMANABHAN NADAR VS. CHINNAN NADAR CHELLAKKAN NADAR [REFERRED TO]
PANDIVI SATYANANDAM VS. PARAMKUSAM NAMMAYYA [REFERRED TO]
PUTTAYYA AND ANR. VS. VARANASHI SUBRAYA HEBBAR AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI AMMAL VS. THANGARAJU PADAYACHI AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
INDIAN HERBS REASERCH AND SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED VS. LALJI MAL [LAWS(DLH)-2001-10-135] [REFERRED TO]JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal by the 8th defendant who is the widow and legal representative of the third defendant, is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Nellore dated September, 13, 1968, by which the suit O. S. 3/1965 instituted by the respondents herein was decreed..
(2.)That suit itself was instituted in forma pauperis for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs 1/4th share in the plaint schedule property and for profits.
(3.)The point raised in this appeal for determination is whether an order passed by a Court under sub-rule (1) of Rs. 92 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure confirming the sale of immovable property held in execution of a decree representatives of the judgment debtor who died subsequent to the date on which the sale was held and prior to the date of confirmation of sale were not brought on record notwithstanding the fact that the applications filed by the judgment-debtor under Rules 89 and 90 of Order 21, Civil P.C. were disallowed. The Counsel appearing on either side stated that the point so formulated, was not covered by any authority either of this Court or of any other Court.
(2.)That suit itself was instituted in forma pauperis for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs 1/4th share in the plaint schedule property and for profits.
(3.)The point raised in this appeal for determination is whether an order passed by a Court under sub-rule (1) of Rs. 92 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure confirming the sale of immovable property held in execution of a decree representatives of the judgment debtor who died subsequent to the date on which the sale was held and prior to the date of confirmation of sale were not brought on record notwithstanding the fact that the applications filed by the judgment-debtor under Rules 89 and 90 of Order 21, Civil P.C. were disallowed. The Counsel appearing on either side stated that the point so formulated, was not covered by any authority either of this Court or of any other Court.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.