Allamsetti Venkatappadu and ors. Vs. Manda Appalaswami - Court Judgment |
| Property |
| Chennai |
| Apr-30-1940 |
| (1940)2MLJ487 |
| Allamsetti Venkatappadu and ors. |
| Manda Appalaswami |
| Somasundaram v. Kondayya
|
- - if the decision confirming a sale constitutes the adjudication which is binding it is clearly equally binding whatever be the nature of the subsequent proceedings in which the judgment-debtor attempts to have the sale set aside.king, j.1. i am unable to see how somasundaram v. kondayya (1926) 49 m.l.j. 401 can be distinguished. it is clear that the learned judges in that case held that the decision to confirm a sale was res judicata against a judgment-debtor who could have raised a plea, but did not, that the land was inalienable. if the decision confirming a sale constitutes the adjudication which is binding it is clearly equally binding whatever be the nature of the subsequent proceedings in which the judgment-debtor attempts to have the sale set aside. sitting singly i am bound to follow somasundaram v. kondayya (1926) 49 m.l.j. 401. i must therefore allow this appeal, set aside the order of remand and dismiss respondent's application with costs throughout.2. leave refused.
King, J.
1. I am unable to see how Somasundaram v. Kondayya (1926) 49 M.L.J. 401 can be distinguished. It is clear that the learned Judges in that case held that the decision to confirm a sale was res judicata against a judgment-debtor who could have raised a plea, but did not, that the land was inalienable. If the decision confirming a sale constitutes the adjudication which is binding it is clearly equally binding whatever be the nature of the subsequent proceedings in which the judgment-debtor attempts to have the sale set aside. Sitting singly I am bound to follow Somasundaram v. Kondayya (1926) 49 M.L.J. 401. I must therefore allow this appeal, set aside the order of remand and dismiss respondent's application with costs throughout.
2. Leave refused.