AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.—In this case the petitioner purchased the property privately from the judgment-debtor. Other persons had purchased
portions of the property before him; the 2nd counter-petitioner is an auction-purchaser. The contention of the petitioner is that as he himself and the
previous vendees have paid the full amount of the decree the sale should be set aside. The lower Appellate Court held, following the decision of
this Court in Karunakara Menon v. Krishna Menon 27 Ind. Cas. 952 : 28 M.L.J. 262 : 2 L.W. 196 : 39 M.k 429 that as the petitioner paid only a
portion of the amount he is not entitled to ask that the auction should be set aside. That decision has been sought to be distinguished before me. In
my opinion the lower Appellate Court is right in holding that the present case is covered by the authority cited by the lower Appellate Court. Even
apart from this view I fail to see what question of jurisdiction there can be for interference u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As was pointed
out by the Judicial Committee in Balakrishna Udayar v. Vasudeva Aiyar 40 Ind. Cas. 650 : 19 Bom. L.R. 715 : (1917) M.W.N. 628 : 6 L.W.
501 : 22 C.W.N. 50 : 11 Bur. L.T. 48 : 44 I.A. 26 the mere fact that a wrong decision has been given on a question of law would not enable an
Appellate Court to interfere with the order of the Court below u/s 115. For both these reasons I uphold the judgment of the Court below and
dismiss the petition with costs of the 2nd respondent.