Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)
Naubat Lal And Ors. vs B Mahadeo Prasad Singh And Ors. on 24 January, 1929 cites

Shah Mehdi Hasan vs Ismail Hasan And Ors. on 15 April, 1920

5. It must be stated that in that case the point raised was different and that as a matter of fact no sale had actually taken place on the material date. In the present case no doubt, the auction sale had been held and the property had been purchased by the decree-holders. A reference to Rule 92, Order 21, shows that a sale cannot become absolute until it is confirmed by the Court and in fact when a deposit is made under Rule 89, the Court makes an order setting aside the sale. It is only when a sale has become absolute that the Court grants a certificate specifying the property sold and that certificate bears the date on which the sale became absolute. We are of opinion that until the sale is confirmed it does not transfer the interest of the judgment-debtor to the auction-purchaser, and where in a case that interest is never transferred by the order of a Court, it cannot be said that the right of redemption had come to an end. In fact the payment made in this case was made by a person who was owner of the property and interested in it as a purchaser of the equity of redemption. Rule 89 had not on the date of this sale been amended by the rule-making powers of this Court to include the judgment-debtor and we cannot accept the contention that the payment made was not made by the mortgagor or his transferee but as a judgment-debtor. We are, therefore, of opinion that the plaintiffs' claim is not barred by limitation and that Article 61, Sch. 2, Lim. Act, does not apply to the facts of the present case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1