GIDDA NAGA MALLIAH Vs. KOTHURI LAXMAYYA
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
GIDDA NAGA MALLIAH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)These tow revisions by the creditors give rise to an interesting question of law as to whether a District Court Sheristadar, who was directed by the High Court to be in charge of the routine duties of the office of an Offcial Receiver, which action was subsequently ratified by the State Government is competent to sell the insolvents estate.
(2.)The material facts that gave rise to these revisions lie in a short compass. One Aravapalli Lakshmanaswamy, the second respondent herein, was adjudged insolvent by the Sub Court, Narasaraopet in I. p. No. 40 of 1954 in the year 1955 and his properties vested in the Official Receiver, who did not take possession of the same as nothing material had happened till Ist November. 1960 when he applied for leave preparatory to retirement and handled over charge pursuant to the orders of this Court under Ext. A-1 dated 25/10/1960, to the Sheristadar, District Court, Guntur, who was directed to be "in charge of the routine duties of the office of the Official Receiver until a substitute assumes charge". Under the original of Ex. B-1 dated November 1960, the State Government granted leave to the full-time Official Receiver preparatory to his retirement and ratified the action of this Court in directing the District Judge. Guntur to place the Sheristadar. District Court in additional charge of the routine duties of the office of the Official Receiver, Guntur. On 11/02/19961, a house situated in Chilakaluripet belonging to the insolvent was sold in public auction subject to the life interest of the insolvents mother, by the Sheristadar for a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 to the Ist respondent herein. The petitioners herein, who are the creditors of the insolvent Lakshmanaswamy, filed I. A. No. 977 of 1961 for setting aside the sale held by the Sheristadar on 11-2-1961, contending inter alia that the Sheristadar was not empowered to conduct the sale and there was fraud and material irregularity in the publication and conduct of the sale resulting in gross under valuation, and deposited Rs. 10,000.00 into the court. I. a. No. 978 of 1961 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay, if any, in filing I. A. No. 977/61 was also filed on the ground that there was no proper publication and that they had no knowledge about the sale. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed both the application. Aggrieved by the decision of the Sub-Court, the auction-purchaser preferred C. M. A. Nos. 3 and 33 of 1963 to the Dist. Court, Guntur against I. A. Nos. 977 and 978/61 respectively. The learned District Judge, holding that the Sheristadar-Receiver was competent to conduct the sale on 11-2-1961, remanded the application to the lower Court directing it to decide the applications on merits. hence these revision petitions.
(3.)Mr. Seetharamayya, learned Counsel for the petitioners, raised the following contentions; 910 that the appointment of the Sheristadar by the High Court being not to the post of Offcial Receiver but only to look after the routine duties of the office of the Official Receiver, he had no power to conduct the sale of the properties of the insolvent, and hence, the sale is void; (2) that there is no delay in failing I. A. No. 977 of 1961; and (3) that no appeal lies against the order of the Sub-Court condoning the delay, to the District Court.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.