Or.21, Rule 97 , Sec.47 & Sec.151 of CPC - claim petition -For the petitioner she got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 whereas on behalf of the respondents no witness was examined and no documents were marked. - In both the earlier claim petitions it was held by the Court that the E.P schedule property belonged to Amalakanti Ratnam. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Against that order, the CMA was preferred which was dismissed making same observations aggrieved by which the present CRP has been filed. -a person not having any saleable interest in the property to question the corresponding sale.- Emphatically Order XXI Rule 90(2) CPC clearly postulates that the question of sale of property can be raised by a person who got actual interest in the property. Hence the petition is not tenable.-Section 47 CPC does not deal with the question of material irregularity or fraud in conducting the sale whereas that aspect is to be dealt with under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC only. On the other hand if the grounds alleged do not lead to matters in publishing or conducting the sale but are anterior to, or subsequent to sale the corresponding application is outside the purview of Order XXI Rule 90 CPC and comes within the purview of Section 47 CPC. - For the purpose of finding out whether particular application comes under Order XXI Rule 90 or Section 47 CPC, the substance of the application must be taken into consideration. - What is important in the present context is that the petitioner is questioning the irregularity or illegality in publishing the notice of the sale of the property only by reason of which the matter comes only within the purview or Order XXI Rule 90 CPC. On the other hand when the petitioner is not having any saleable interest in the property, he or she cannot have any locus standi to question the sale of the property.-the Civil Revision Petition isdismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) payableby the petitioner to the third respondent-auction purchaser in pursuing the frivolous litigation -2015 A.P.(2013) MSK LAW REPORTS


Or.21, Rule 97 , Sec.47 & Sec.151 of CPC - claim petition -For the petitioner she got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 whereas on behalf of the respondents no witness was examined and no documents were marked.  - In both the earlier claim petitions it was held by the Court that the E.P schedule property belonged to Amalakanti Ratnam. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Against that order, the CMA was preferred which was dismissed making same observations aggrieved by which the present CRP has been filed. -a person not having any saleable interest in the property to question the corresponding sale. Emphatically Order XXI Rule 90(2) CPC clearly postulates that the question of sale of property can be raised by a person who got actual interest in the property.  Hence the petition is not tenable.-Section 47 CPC does not deal with the question of material irregularity or fraud in conducting the sale whereas that aspect is to be dealt with under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC only. On the other hand if the grounds alleged do not lead to matters in publishing or conducting the sale but are anterior to, or subsequent to sale the corresponding application is outside the purview of Order XXI Rule 90 CPC and comes within the purview of Section 47 CPC.  For the purpose of finding out whether particular application comes under Order XXI Rule 90 or Section 47 CPC, the substance of the application must be taken into consideration.  What is important in the present context is that the petitioner is questioning the irregularity or illegality in publishing the notice of the sale of the property only by reason of which the matter comes only within the purview or Order XXI Rule 90 CPC.  On the other hand when the petitioner is not having any saleable interest in the property, he or she cannot have any locus standi to question the sale of the property. The circumstances of the case make it very clear that
the auction purchaser suffered a lot to enjoy the fruits of sale held in 1998.The family members of the petitioner and also the petitioner successfully thwarted his endeavour to achieve his object having filed various petitions referred and thereby placing necessary hurdles.In the result, for the above reasons, the Civil Revision Petition isdismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) payableby the petitioner to the third respondent-auction purchaser in pursuing the
frivolous litigation within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the third respondent-auction purchaser can realize it as per law. - 2015 A.P.(2013) MSK LAW REPORTS.

Popular posts from this blog

APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [6]

Delhi Rent control Act sec.14 - Rent Control Case - Eviction Petition - The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant  on  the  ground  that  the tenant had sub-let the premises to his son-in-law  in  contravention  of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred  to  as ‘the Act’).  -  whether  he  was doing business along with his father-in-law or independent of him,  i.e. whether  he  was  doing  business  exclusively  behind  the  façade   of   a  partnership or as a genuine partner.  It is an  uncontroverted  fact  before  us that the landlord’s permission in writing was  not  obtained  before  the  tenant had allowed the alleged sub-tenant to occupy the shop -  the Rent Controller clearly found that the son-in-law had been put  in  possession of the shop in pursua...
Read more

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, Rule 1 & 2 and Sec. 151 and sec.94 of C.P.C - Police aid when to be granted - hear both parties when resisted - to avoid dispossession of actual possessor with the help of police aid - identify the property before issuing of police aid with the help of advocate commissioner if necessary - since the defendant pleaded that before the filing of suit and after filing of the suit ,he never trespassed into the suit schedule property nor violated interim injunction order - even though no evidence of violation of injunction not filed , the lower court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent when police aid is granted -2013 A.P. msklawreports

filed the I.A.No.175 of 2010 for granting police aid on the ground that the order of ad-interim injunction could not be implemented as the petitioners involved in violating it. In particular the petitioner has not filed any document to show that the injunction granted by this Court is being violated or the respondents damaged his quarry It is the case of the respondents that they did not trespass into suit schedule property before or after the injunction is granted.  What that is the case of the respondents, this Court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the police aid is granted to implement the order of this Court. "  the Court below granted the police aid aggrieved by which the present C.R.P. has been filed However, whereas great caution is to be taken for granting ex parte ad-interim injunction equal measures are to be taken while granting police aid to enforce that order.   Under the guise of an order of ad-interim i...
Read more