LAKSHMANASAMI GOUNDER versus C.I.T. SELVAMANI AND ORS.

LAKSHMANASAMI GOUNDER versus C.I.T. SELVAMANI AND ORS.

The specification of date and place of sale is mandatory for validity of auction under Section 36 of the Act; omission thereof renders the sale invalid. Further, failure to deposit the balance consideration within 30 days vitiates the sale, and confirmation of sale without such deposit is illegal.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Lakshmanasamigounder; Respondent: C.I.T. Selvamani
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 November 1991
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Madras High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Revenue Recovery, Public Auction, Statutory Interpretation
Property Law Revenue Law Revenue Recovery Public Auction Statutory Interpretation

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lakshmanasamigounder

Appellant

C.I.T. Selvamani

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Madras High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether omission of specification of place of sale in notice under Section 36 of Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1894 renders sale invalid
  2. 2 Whether delay in deposit of balance sale consideration beyond 30 days vitiates sale

Ratio Decidendi

The specification of date and place of sale is mandatory for validity of auction under Section 36 of the Act; omission thereof renders the sale invalid. Further, failure to deposit the balance consideration within 30 days vitiates the sale, and confirmation of sale without such deposit is illegal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Additional District Collector restoring sale set aside is restored
  • Writ petition dismissed