Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.21 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Pootheri Illath Kuttikrishnan Nair, ... vs Kallil Appa Nair And Anr. on 22 March, 1926
It is therefore clear that there has been a proclamation. But it is also clear
that no notice was issued regarding the settlement of this proclamation. The question then is whether lack of notice under Rule 66 of Order XXI to the judgment-debtors before settlement of the proclamation would make the sale that followed on such a proclamation void. This has been answered in the negative by two decisions of this Court, in Kuttikrishnan Nair v. Madbavan Nair, 1959 Ker LJ 213 - (AIR 1959 Ker 382) and in Kunjan Raman v. Cheria, (1960) 1 Ker LR 315, This was also the view 06 the Madras High Court in the earlier decisions referred to in 1959 Ker LJ 213 = (AIR 1959 Ker 382) but there are two later decisions of the Madras High Court which took a different view. The later view of the Madras High Court has not been accepted by this Court in 1959 Ker LJ 213 = (AIR 1959 Ker 382). We sec no reason to differ from the views taken in the decisions in 1959 Ker LT 213 = (AIR 1959 Ker 382) and in (1960) 1 Ker LR 315. We therefore hold that the sale is not void, that it has to be set aside in appropriate proceedings on application, that Article 127 of the Limitation Act would apply to such applications, that applications E. As. 166 and 321 of 1966 having been filed beyond the period provided by that Article are barred by limitation and are not sustainable. We therefore set aside the orders of the courts below, allow these appeals and dismiss the application for setting aside the sale. We make no order as to costs.
1