Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ANGAMALY CHITTY FUND PVT. LTD. versus C.S.DEVASSY, CHIRAKKAL VEEDU

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ANGAMALY CHITTY FUND PVT. LTD. v. C.S.DEVASSY, CHIRAKKAL VEEDU - WP(C) No. 31792 of 2006(I) [2007] RD-KL 1265 (17 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 31792 of 2006(I)

1. ANGAMALY CHITTY FUND PVT. LTD.,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. C.S.DEVASSY, CHIRAKKAL VEEDU,
... Respondent

2. ROSY DEVASSY, CHIRAKKAL VEEDU,

For Petitioner :SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY

For Respondent :SRI.ROY MATHEW

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :17/01/2007

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

W.P.(C) .NO.31792 OF 2006 Dated 17th January 2007

J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is decree holder and respondents judgment debtor in O.S.112/2000 on the file of Sub court, North Paravur. For realisation of decree debt, petitioner filed E.P.177/03. Properties of the respondents were sold in court auction and was purchased by auction purchaser decree holder. Sale was confirmed. At that stage the matter was settled between the decree holder and judgment debtors. Decree holder filed Ext.P3 memo before the executing court stating that decree debt has been satisfied and therefore full satisfaction is to be recorded. Petitioner also filed an application for return of the excess amount deposited by petitioner towards purchase price and also the amount deposited for issuing sale certificate. Under Exts.P4 and P5 orders petitions were dismissed. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging those orders.

2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and 2 respondents were heard.

3. It is clear from the submission made by learned counsel appearing for decree holder petitioner and respondents as well as Ext.P3 petition filed before the executing court that after confirmation of sale, decree holder received the entire amount due from judgment debtors agreeing that decree holder will not proceed with the right obtained under the purchase of property. Respondents agreed that decree holder could receive the amount deposited in court. It is clear from the report called for from the executing court that though sale was confirmed, no sale certificate was issued to decree holder and the amount deposited was not used for purchasing stamps. Before a sale certificate was issued the matter was settled with decree holder and judgment debtors. In such circumstance, in the interest of justice, executing court is directed to refund the excess amount, which was deposited by decree holder towards purchase price as well as the amount deposited for purchase of stamps for issuance of sale certificate. It is made clear that in view of the settlement, in spite of the confirmation of 3 sale, it is declared that the court auction sale in favour of decree holder auction purchaser stands cancelled. Writ petition is disposed accordingly. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,

JUDGE.

uj.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.