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

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more