DOKKU BHUSHAYYA versus KATRAGADDA RAMAKRISHNAYYA

DOKKU BHUSHAYYA versus KATRAGADDA RAMAKRISHNAYYA

Order 32 Rule 7 is not applicable to the withdrawal of the application for setting aside the sale in execution, as the compromise did not affect the rights and liabilities declared by the decree. Leave of the court under Order 32 Rule 7 was not necessary, and the order withdrawing the application was binding on the minor.

Parties
Appellant: Dokku Bhushayya; Respondent: Katragadda Ramakrishnayya; Respondents: Respondents Nos. 7 and 8
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 April 1962
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Decree of Madras High Court in Appeal No. 66 of 1946
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Execution of Decrees, Minor's Guardian, Compromise Without Leave of Court
Civil Procedure Execution of Decrees Minor's Guardian Compromise Without Leave of Court

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dokku Bhushayya

Appellant

Katragadda Ramakrishnayya

Respondent

Respondents Nos. 7 and 8

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Decree of Madras High Court in Appeal No. 66 of 1946

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Order 32 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to withdrawal of an application for setting aside a sale in execution against a minor, without leave of court, making it voidable against the minor

Ratio Decidendi

Order 32 Rule 7 is not applicable to the withdrawal of the application for setting aside the sale in execution, as the compromise did not affect the rights and liabilities declared by the decree. Leave of the court under Order 32 Rule 7 was not necessary, and the order withdrawing the application was binding on the minor.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal is dismissed with costs of the contesting respondents.