AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—The above Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 8.10.1990 made in
C.M.A. No. 771 of 1985.
Before going into the merits, it is brought to our notice that when the matter was pending before the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal
Nos. 689 of 1998, the first appellant viz., P.S.Sathappan died and in his place, his wife (1) S. Lakshmi @ Jayalakshmi , (2) minor S.S.Seetha, (3)
Minor S. Jegan Somasundaram were impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased first appellant. They also filed a memo to that effect
before this Court. The said memo is hereby recorded and the following persons viz., 1) S. Lakshmi @ Jayalakshmi, (2) minor S.S.Seetha, (3)
Minor S. Jegan Somasundaram are brought on record as appellants 2 to 4 in this appeal.
Coming to the order which is under challenge, it is seen that before the learned Judge, the appellant has raised several contentions questioning
that the Court auction sale was vitiated. The learned Judge, considered all the objections. It is further seen that inasmuch as the first appellant (since
died) filed a suit for partition in C.S. No. 188 of 1972, the learned Judge has directed him to work out his right therein. It is also brought to our
notice that the said suit has been disposed of and pursuant to the follow up action, the property in question was purchased by the first respondent
Andhra Bank. Inasmuch as the learned Judge has considered the contentions raised and negatived the same by giving adequate reasons, in the
absence of any other material, the said conclusion cannot be interfered with. No serious argument was advanced with regard to the findings of the
learned Judge. On going through the materials, we are in agreement with the said conclusion and we do not find any valid ground for interference.
Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.