Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)
Abdul Ghani vs Mahendra Kumar And Ors. on 18 September, 1978 cites

C. Ganapathi Mudaliar vs Krishnamachariar And Ors. on 17 February, 1914

"It is important to remember that after the decision of the Privy Council in Ganapathy's case, 45 Ind App 54: (AIR 1917 PC 121) there has been an amendment of Section 47 as a result of which the purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree, whether he is the decree-holder or not, is unquestionably a party to the suit for the purpose of Section 47. Having regard to this, all questions arising between the auction purchaser and the judgment-debtor must in our view be determined by the executing court and not by a separate suit."
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Janak Raj vs Gurdial Singh And Anr on 8 November, 1966

6. This decision has been consistently followed, as it ought to have been followed, by different High Courts and it is not necessary to refer to all those cases, An analogous question arose for the consideration of the Supreme Court In the case Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1967 SC 608. In the said case, the decree-holder had obtained a money decree against the judgment-debtor. In execution of the said decree, the property of the judgment-debtor in that case was sold. The decree was subsequently set aside and the auction-purchaser who was a stranger to the decree applied to the execution court for confirmation of sale, Against that application the judgment-debtor of that case filed an objection. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held against the Judgment-debtor and observed as follows (at pp. 613, 614):--"For the reasons already given and the decision noticed, it must be held that the appellant-auction-purchaser was entitled to a confirmation of the sale notwithstanding the fact that after the holding of the sale the decree had been set aside. The policy of the Legislature seems to be that unless a stranger auction purchaser is protected against the vicissitudes of the fortunes of the suit, sales in execution would not attract customers and it would be to the detriment of the interest of the borrower and the creditor alike if sales were allowed to be impugned merely because the decree was ultimately set aside or modified. The Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 makes ample provision for the protection of the interest of the judgment-debtor who feels that the decree ought not to have been passed against him. On the facts of this case, it is difficult to see why the judgment-debtor did not take resort to the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 89. The decree was for a small amount and he could have easily deposited the decretal amount besides 5 per cent of the purchase money and thus have the sale set aside. For reasons which are not known to us he did not do so."
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 132 - G K Mitter - Full Document

S.P. Sahul Hamid vs P.M. Abdul Majid And Ors. on 18 October, 1963

17. It may be that a stranger to the decree is under no duty to enquire into the merits or into the validity of the decree in pursuance of which a sale is held. A stranger will necessarily be unaware of such matters. In the instant case, the auction purchaser is the own son of the decree-holder and the execution court has held that the money invested in the sale came from the decree-holder. This finding has not been reversed by the court of appeal. It has been held in S.P. Sahul Hamid v. P.M. Abdul Majid, AIR 1964 Mad 252, that burden of proving bona fides lies on an auction purchaser seeking to protect the sale which is concluded in his favour. The lower appellate court has proceeded on the basis that there is a presumption that a person who is not a party to the suit must be deemed to be a bona fide purchaser for value whatever may be the facts of the case, There is no warrant in law for raising such a presumption. In my opinion, the second submission urged on behalf of the appellant deserves to succeed.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1