High CourtsDivision Bench(1944) 10 MAD CK 0011

Mullapudi Hanumayya vs Annadasu China Bapanayya and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 13 October 1944 · Citation: AIR 1945 Mad 188 : (1945) ILR (Mad) 566 : (1945) 58 LW 10 : (1945) 1 MLJ 66

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J

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

17 paragraphs · 364 words

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.—On the 7th April, 1943, immovable property was sold by the Subordinate Court of Tenali in execution of

a money decree. Within time the judgment-debtors applied under Order 21, Rule 89 of the CPC for an order setting aside the sale and deposited

the necessary amount. The application was opposed by the auction purchaser on the ground that the decretal amount '' had not been paid into

Court by the judgment-debtors themselves, but by one V. Bapamma who was acting as their agent. The objection was rightly overruled by the

Subordinate Judge and the sale was set aside. The auction purchaser has, however, preferred this appeal.

2.

The appellant relies on a decision of a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court who apparently was of the opinion that the money must be

deposited either by the judgment-debtor himself or by an agent authorised by special or general power-of-attorney. We are not prepared to follow

this decision, which was given in the case of Tulshi Prasad Vs. Mathura Prasad, . In our opinion it does not correctly state the law. There is,

however, a decision of a Bench of this Court which does--Thimmaraju Venkata Kutumba Rao v. Thimmaraju Venkatappa (1923) 46 M.L.J. 119.

In that case the deposit was made by the pleader''s clerk, not by the pleader, and it was suggested that this vitiated the application. The Court

rejected the contention and stated that the mere fact that the vakil sent the money by the hand of his clerk instead of taking it to the treasury himself

would not invalidate the application.

3.

Rule 89 requires the deposit to be made by the judgment-debtor, but that does not mean that it requires the personal attendance of the

judgment-debtor when paying the money. A judgment-debtor can pay in the money through an agent and we can see no necessity for a power of

attorney. The judgment-debtor must, of course, direct the payment to be made. The lodgment schedule shows that the money was paid by V.

Bapamma on behalf of the judgment-debtor and she obviously paid it as their agent: This was sufficient.

4.

The appeal is dismissed with costs.