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

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 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more