PUTTI KONDALA RAO & ORS. versus VELLAMANCHILI SITARATTAMMA & ANR.

PUTTI KONDALA RAO & ORS. versus VELLAMANCHILI SITARATTAMMA & ANR.

In applications under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC, while express allegation of substantial injury is preferable, the existence of substantial injury may also be implied by the facts and circumstances alleged in the petition. In the present case, the trial court's conclusion that the sale was properly conducted and at a...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Putti Kondala Rao & Ors.; Respondent: Vellamanchili Sitarattamma & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 December 1975
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal by Special Leave
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Execution of Decrees, Judicial Sales, Irregularity in Sale Process, Setting Aside Sale, Order XXI Rule 90 CPC
Civil Procedure Execution of Decrees Judicial Sales Irregularity in Sale Process Setting Aside Sale Order XXI Rule 90 CPC

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Putti Kondala Rao & Ors.

Appellant

Vellamanchili Sitarattamma & Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal by Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether substantial injury needs to be expressly alleged or can be implied from facts in an application under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC to set aside a sale for material irregularities.
  2. 2 Whether in the facts of the case there was substantial injury due to under-valuation or fraud in the sale process.

Ratio Decidendi

In applications under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC, while express allegation of substantial injury is preferable, the existence of substantial injury may also be implied by the facts and circumstances alleged in the petition. In the present case, the trial court's conclusion that the sale was properly conducted and at a fair value considering the mortgages and recorded prices was correct, justifying restoration of its judgment and dismissal of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment of the trial court restored.
  • Appellants to pay costs to the respondents.