Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)

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

8. The contention is that the local Government has not made any rules declaring that Section 66 does not apply and therefore, under Clause (2) of that Section, it must be taken that Section 66 is made applicable to a sale in execution of a decree of a revenue Court. But the contention omits to take notice of the fact that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are only made applicable subject to the provisions of the Act and so far as the provisions of the Code are not inconsistent therewith. Where the Act itself provides the procedure for the sale of immoveable property in execution of decrees for rent that procedure has to ,be followed and not the procedure prescribed in the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code so far as they relate to the sale of immoveable property and the issue of sale certificate to a purchaser at such a sale must be deemed to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. This is the view taken by a division bench of this Court in Jagannatha Pillai v. Kathaperumal Pillai (1927) 53 M.L.J. 688 : I.L.R. 51 Mad. 76. (Vide the observations of Jackson, J., at page 82).
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Bishan Dayal vs Kesho Prasad And Anr. on 11 August, 1936

4. The section deals with a purchase certified by the Court in . such manner as may be prescribed. "Prescribed" has been defined in the Civil Procedure Code, as "prescribed by the rules". "Rules" are defined as meaning "rules and forms contained in the first schedule or made under Section 122 or Section 125, Civil Procedure Code". Prima facie, therefore, the section only applies to purchases made and sale certificates issued under the rules contained in the first schedule of the Civil Procedure Code, which make provision for sales in execution of decrees and issue of sale certificates for purchases made at those sales. As pointed out by Sulaiman, C.J., in Bishan Dayal v. Kesho Prasad I.L.R. (1937) All. 113 at 121:
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 21 - Full Document
1   2 Next