High CourtsDivision Bench(1901) 11 MAD CK 0016

Sambasiva Ayyar vs Vydinadasami and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 25 November 1901 · Citation: (1902) ILR (Mad) 535

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bhashyam Ayyangar, J · Benson, 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

6 paragraphs · 115 words
1.

The words of the Section 307 of the CPC are clear and imperative, and must be given effect to.

2.

The fact that the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor do not ask for a re-sale but consent to the original sale being allowed to stand, is no

reason why the Government should forego the forfeiture. The forfeiture is imposed by the Code in order to prevent waste of the Court''s time in

conducting re-sales in consequence of defaults like the present.

3.

There was nothing, we may add, so far as appears, to have prevented the purchaser from sending the money to the Court within time even if he

was unable to attend in person.