Case Details

Citation(s)
1956 SLG 133 1956 SLD 133 1956 PLD 220
Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal No. 183 of 1952 [from Second Appeal No. 1826 of 194.5, dated 16th February 1950 (Mad.)] decided on 4th November, 1955.
BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR AND B.P. SINHA, JJ
B. Somayya Senior Advocate (K. R. Choudhury and Naunitlal Advocates with him) for Appellant. K. S. Krishnaswamy Aiyangar Senior Advocate (K. R. Krishnaswamy Advocate with him) for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.

MERLA RAMANNA

VS

NALLAPARAJU and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---Arts. 163, 166 and 181--­Void execution sale-Limitation for application to recover possession by -debtor - Whether Article 166 or 181 applies. Under Article 166 an application by a -debtor to set aside a sale in execution of a decree has to be filed within 30 days of the sale but the Article applies only when the sale is one which has under the law to be set aside as for example under Order XXI, rules 89, 90 and 91. It has no application when the ground of objection to the sale in execution of a decree is that it is not warranted by the terms thereof and consequently void and inoperative. In such a case limitation for an application by a -debtor to recover possession of property sold and taken possession of under a void execution sale is three years under Article 181. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-----Art. 181-Starting point of limitation. It is not until the purchaser acting under colour of sale interferes with his possession that the person whose properties have been sold is really aggrieved and what gives him right to apply under Article 181 is such Interference or dispossession and not the sale. The right to apply arises by reason of dispossession and not of sale and the starting point for limitation would be the date of dispossession. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S. 47- Excessive execution-Whether separate suit with reference thereto would be barred-Whether plaint to separate suit can be treated as application under S. 47. When a sale in execution of a decree is impugned on the ground that it is not warranted by the terms thereof, that question could be agitated; when it- arises between parties to the decree; only by an application under section 47 of the Civil P. C: and not in a separate suit. However under section 47 clause (2) the Coda has the power to treat the plaint in the suit as an application under 'section 47 provided on that date an application for the relief claimed was not barred by limitation and provided further that, the Court in which it was filed was competent to execute the decree. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----Ss. 37, 38 and 39--­Whether Court which passes decree loses…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492