Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 89 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Manilal Mohanlal Shah And Others vs Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahmad And ... on 14 April, 1954
13. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manilal
Mohanlal Shah and others Vs. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed
Mahmad and another, 1 in which it was held that "the inherent
powers of the Court cannot be invoked to circumvent the
mandatory provisions of the Code and relieve the auction
purchasers of their obligation to make the deposit of purchase
money under Order 21 rule 85" and it was also held that "there
was default in depositing 25 percent of the purchase money and
further there was no payment of the full amount of the purchase
1
AIR 1954 SC 349
15
money within fifteen days from the date of the sale. Both the
deposit and the payment of the purchase money being mandatory
under the combined effect of rules 84 and 85, the Court has the
discretion to forfeit the deposit but it was bound to re-sell the
property with the result that on default the purchaser forfeited all
claim to the property. These provisions leave no doubt that unless
the deposit and the payment are made as required by the
mandatory provisions of the rules there is no sale in the eye of
law in favour of the defaulting purchaser and no right to own and
possess the property accrues to him." The Counsel for the
petitioners argued that in view of the language of the relevant
rules and the judicial decisions, the very fact that the Court is
bound to re-sell the property in the event of a default shows
that the previous proceedings for sale are completely wiped out
as if they do not exist in the eye of law and when there was no
sale, purchasers acquire no rights at all. He further contended
that it was specifically held in the above citation that Order 21
rule 85 and 86 are mandatory and its non-compliance renders
the sale proceedings as complete nullity requiring the Executing
Court has to proceed with resale unless J.Dr. satisfies the
decree by making the payment before resale.
Kudiyala Ramana vs Vattikolla Somaraju And Ors. on 2 January, 2003
For the same
proposition he relied upon the decision of this Court in the
case of W.Veerabhadra RAo Vs. Nedungudi Bank
Limited, 3 and in the case of Kudiyala Ramana Vs.
Vattikolla Somaraju and others, 4 in which it was held that
subsequent payment does not cure the defect.
W. Veerabhadra Rao vs Nedungudi Bank Limited And Ors. on 6 October, 1998
For the same
proposition he relied upon the decision of this Court in the
case of W.Veerabhadra RAo Vs. Nedungudi Bank
Limited, 3 and in the case of Kudiyala Ramana Vs.
Vattikolla Somaraju and others, 4 in which it was held that
subsequent payment does not cure the defect.
1