High CourtsDivision Bench(1896) 12 MAD CK 0013

Muthu Ayyar vs Ramasami Sastrial and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 1 December 1896 · Citation: (1897) ILR (Mad) 158

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subramania Ayyar, J · Davies, 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

7 paragraphs · 135 words
1.

Admittedly the judgment-debtor paid the 5 per cent. required under Clause (a) of Section 310-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, upon the

whole amount of the purchase-money including that deducted by the Court for poundage. Under that clause he is not required to do any more.

Having also fulfilled the requirement of Clause (b) he was entitled to have the sale set aside, even though something more on account of the

poundage was recoverable from him under the head of costs provided for in the last clause of the Section 310-A. The petitioner was therefore

wrong in opposing the setting aside of the sale. His course was to have applied to the Court for the recovery of what he was entitled to under

Sections 315 and 310-A.

2.

The petition is accordingly dismissed.