ALAYAKKAMMAL Vs. ARUNACHALA CHETTY
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The first matter pressed is as regards the rate of interest. We agree with the District Judge that Mr. Horsfall's order on execution petition. No. 24 of 1893 is binding on the appellant as ho was a party to the proceedings and did not appeal against the order.
(2.) We are, however, satisfied that the sale was adjourned from the 22nd to the 29th "October 1897 without any order from the judge, there being no such order on the record. Such order is required by Section 291, Civil Procedure Code, as the sale was within the precincts of the court-house. The evidence also shows that the properly was sold for fur less than its value, and it is a fair inference that this was due to the irregularity in adjourning the sale.
(3.) We must, therefore, allow the appeal with costs and set aside the sale and direct that the property lie again put up for sale after a fresh proclamation.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.