LexPUTTI KONDALA RAO & ORS. versus VELLAMANCHILI SITARATTAMMA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.A .B •C 998 PUTTI KONDALA RAO & ORS. v. VELLAMANCHILI SITARATTAMMA & ANR. December 12, 1975 [A. N. RAY, c. J., M. H. BEG, R. s. SARE:ARIA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] Code of Ci"i/ Proe'cdure-Order XX!, r. 90~Allegatio11s of substcmtial in· jury-If ca11 be implied from facts and circumstanc.es alleged. In an application under O.XXI, r. 90, Civil Procedure Code, the appellants (judgment·debtors) alleged that the sale of their property pursuant to an order of attachment was illegal for material irregularities. The trial Court held that where there was an irregularity in the procedure for sale, the remedy would be to apply to set aside the sale on proof of substantial injury and that there was no fraud in the sale, as alleged by the appellants. On .appeal, the first appellate Court held that the auction-purchaser was the husband. of the decree-holder and that there MIS gross under-valuation of the property and so set aside the sale. On further appeal, the High Court held that the application of the appellants was defective and not maintainable and the Court had no power to set aside the sale unless facts were alleged and proved by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Court that he had sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregu- larity. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : (I) The judgment of the trial Court should be restored. The trial Court was correct in its conclusion and reasons that the property sold was subject to mortgages and charges and was sold at the correct price, taking into consideration the price of the prope,rties in the neighbourhood and other evi- :E dence on record. f!OOO E, 1001 G] .F · (2) The judgment of the trial Court was wrongly rever,'ed by the first appellate court Substantial justice had' been done to the parties. [IOOt'.C] (3) The High Court was not unjustified in holding that the application for setting aside the sale was bald and that there was no proper allegation of sub- stantial injury to the appellants. Sometimes, however, there may not be express allegation• of substantial injury and the same may appear to be i~plicit from all facts and circumstances alleged. In the present case, the allegations in the petition coulct be read to imply substantial injury to the appellants. The trial Court as well as the first appellate court heard the parties and decided the case on the footing that there w<:re allegations of substantial injury to the appel- lants. [1001 E-F] · L11xmide1·i v. Setha11i Mukand Kamrar & Ors., [1965] 1 S.C.R. 726, referred to. 1G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 643 of 1975. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated the 24-3-1973 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.R.P. No. 1015/72. iii M. K. Ramamurthi and B. Parthasarthi for the appellants. B. V. Subrahmanyam and A. Subba Rao for the Respondents. H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. This appeal is by special leave from the judgm<:nt dated 24 March, 1973 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. , P. K. RAO V. SITARATTAMMA (Ray, C.J.) 999 Tfie High Court held that the application of the appellants, the judg- ment debtors is defective and not maintainable and the Court has no power to set aside the sale unless facts are alleged by the applicant and proved by him to the satisfaction of the court that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity. The respondents are the decree-holders. Pursuant to the decree there was an order for attachment and sale of the house property of the appeI!ants. The sale took place on 7 June, 1960. The appellants filed an application on 7 July, 1960 under Order XXI Rule 90: of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale. On 18 November, 1966 the application was dismissed by the Munsif. On 22 April, 1972 the Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal filed by the judgment debtors and set aside the sale. The High Court pursuant to the revision petition presented by the auction purchaser set aside the order of the Subordinate Court on the ground that the application of the appellants under Order XXI was defective and not maintainable. The application was in seven paragraphs. The first two paragraphs contained the description of the petitioners and the respondents. In the third paragraph the judgment debtors alleged that the properties were purchased by the husband of the decree holder. In the fourth paragraph the judgment debtors
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.