Achamma Vs. Basappa

Achamma vs Basappa

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 09, 1897

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/773423

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/773423
Court: Chennai
Decided On: Sep 09, 1897
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 3. As to the next objection to the sale, we are clearly of opinion that what was attached and sold was the mortgage bond.

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Achamma

Respondent

Basappa

Legal References

Cases Referred: Muniappa Naik v. Subramania Ayyan
Reported In: (1898)8MLJ1

Excerpt

- - 3. as to the next objection to the sale, we are clearly of opinion that what was attached and sold was the mortgage bond.1. the district munsif's court at bellary which passed the decree ordered the transfer of execution of the decree to the district munsif's court at gooty.2. it is contended that in doing so the bellary court was misled as to the existence of property in gooty by the representations then made on behalf of the judgment creditor. assuming that it was so misled, that did not affect the validity of the order. the court at gooty in executing that decree was, therefore, acting lawfully and the sale cannot be impeached on the ground that the latter court had no jurisdiction.3. as to the next objection to the sale, we are clearly of opinion that what was attached and sold was the mortgage bond. the omission to attach the immovable property hypothecated by the bond under section 274, was a mere irregularity which does not affect the sale. the sale was not opposed by the judgment-debtor and became final, muniappa naik v. subramania ayyan, i.l.r. 18 m. 437. the mortgagor is not entitled to question the sale on the ground of irregularity.4. we must, therefore, set aside the decrees of the lower courts and remand the suit for disposal.5. costs will abide and follow the event.

Full Judgment

1. The District Munsif's Court at Bellary which passed the decree ordered the transfer of execution of the decree to the District Munsif's Court at Gooty.

2. It is Contended that in doing so the Bellary Court was misled as to the existence of property in Gooty by the representations then made on behalf of the judgment creditor. Assuming that it was so misled, that did not affect the validity of the order. The Court at Gooty in executing that decree was, therefore, acting lawfully and the sale cannot be impeached on the ground that the latter Court had no jurisdiction.

3. As to the next objection to the sale, we are clearly of opinion that what was attached and sold was the mortgage bond. The omission to attach the immovable property hypothecated by the bond under Section 274, was a mere irregularity which does not affect the sale. The sale was not opposed by the judgment-debtor and became final, Muniappa Naik v. Subramania Ayyan, I.L.R. 18 M. 437. The mortgagor is not entitled to question the sale on the ground of irregularity.

4. We must, therefore, set aside the decrees of the lower Courts and remand the suit for disposal.

5. Costs will abide and follow the event.

Same Parties Achamma vs Basappa Same Subject Civil

Civil