High CourtsDivision Bench(1949) 08 MAD CK 0043

Koka Bhaskara Rao and Others vs Tayi Hemalatamma and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 5 August 1949 · Citation: AIR 1950 Mad 150 : (1949) 62 LW 803

HON’BLE JUDGES
Horwill, J · Balakrishna Ayyar, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
A.A.O. No. 670 of 1946

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 362 words

Horwili, J.—In a court sale two persons bid jointly, and the sale was knocked down in their joint names. The judgment-debtors then filed an

application under Order 21, Rule 90 to have the sale set aside on various grounds, and impleaded only one of the joint bidders. The Court

dismissed the application on the ground that only one of the joint bidders had been impleaded.

2.

Mr. Kameswara Rao for the respondent agrees with the learned counsel for the appellants that the order of the learned District Judge cannot be

sustained on that ground, The proviso to Order 21, Rule 92(2) is to the effect that no order setting aside a sale shall be made unless notice of the

application has been given to all persons affected thereby. It would follow from this that in a proper case a sale can be set aside it notice goes to all

the persons affected, and that it is unnecessary under this proviso that all the persons affected should be formally impleaded. So it is clear that the

learned District Judge''s order is wrong.

3.

Mr. Kameswara Rao for the auction purchasers contends that the lower Court should not have allowed the application to proceed without

requiring the appellants to furnish security or to deposit the sale amount under the first proviso to Rule 80 and that his doing so was the result of

collusion between the decree-holder and the appellants. Mr. Ramachandra Rao for the appellants concedes that as far as the auction-purchasers

are concerned, the application to set aside the sale should be considered as not admitted ; so that it is still open to the Court to direct the appellants

to furnish security or deposit the gale amount if it thinks proper to do so.

4.

In allowing the appeal, we set aside the order of the District Judge and restore E. A. No. 66 of 1946 to file. The learned Judge will consider

whether so far as the auction purchasers are concerned the appellants should be required to furnish security or deposit the sale amount, The costs

of this appeal will be provided for in, the order of the lower Court.