Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)
Adusumilli Gopalakrishnayya vs Julury Narasimha Rao, Minor By Guardian ... on 18 January, 1939 cites

Jagannatha Pillai And Ors. vs Kathaperumal Pillai And Ors. on 6 May, 1927

2. I am of opinion that the learned Sub-Collector went wrong in the view he took of the matter. He has taken the view that Section 192 of the Madras Estates Land Act is so worded as to make the procedure of Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, by which execution sales affected by material irregularity are allowed to be set aside, available to the respondent in this revision petition. That view is against the ruling of a Bench of this Court reported in Jagannatha Pillai v. Kathaperumal Pillai (1927) 53 M.L.J. 668 : I.L.R. 51 Mad. 76. In that case the Court had to decide the question as to whether a suit would lie in a Civil Court to set aside a sale held in execution of a rent decree on the ground of fraud and material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale. It was held that the suit would lie. In the course of the judgment the learned Judges have held that the suit is not barred either by the provisions of the Estates Land Act or by Order 21, Rule 92(3), Civil Procedure Code. Jackson, J., at page 82 says:
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Pyda Ramakrishnayya Garu And Anr. vs Kuchipudi Naganna And Ors. on 30 August, 1933

3. I read these observations as meaning that Section 192 is not to be construed as allowing a person in the position of the respondent to approach the Revenue Court with an application for setting aside the sale except under the circumstances specified in Section 131. Part B of the Schedule to the Madras Estates Land Act which contains a list of the applications which are triable by a Collector refers only to an application under Section 131 for setting aside the sale of a holding. Further as pointed out by Madhavan Nair, J., in Ramakrishnayya v. Naganna (1933) 65 M.L.J. 755, Section 192 is not to be regarded as conferring a right to institute substantive applications in the Revenue Courts but as one which merely regulates the procedure in respect of matters over which jurisdiction is granted by Section 189. On this view which I consider to be the only correct view to take on the matter, the petition must be allowed and it is accordingly allowed with costs.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1