SOLANA RAMACHANDRA RAO & ORS. versus MADDI KUTUMBA RAO & ANR.

Since the decree was neither satisfied nor adjusted, and decree-holder only agreed to postpone realization of decree, deposit under Order XXI Rule 89(b) for payment to decree-holder cannot be dispensed with.

Parties: Appellant: Solana Ramachandra Rao; Respondent No. 1: Maddi Kutumba Rao; Respondent No. 2: Second Respondent (minor; represented by guardian Lakshmikantamma)
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 19 April 1967
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgment Dated March 4, 1963
Outcome: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics: Execution Proceedings, Court Sale, Deposit Requirements Under Order XXI Rule 89, Adjustment and Satisfaction of Decree

Civil Procedure Execution Proceedings Court Sale Deposit Requirements Under Order XXI Rule 89 Adjustment and Satisfaction of Decree

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

Solana Ramachandra Rao

Appellant

Maddi Kutumba Rao

Respondent No. 1

Second Respondent (minor; represented by guardian Lakshmikantamma)

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgment Dated March 4, 1963

Legal Issues

1 Whether deposit to decree-holder under Order XXI Rule 89(b) CPC can be dispensed with if decree-holder agrees to alternative payment scheme

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

Deposit to decree-holder under Order XXI Rule 89(b) CPC required; no dispensation without actual adjustment or satisfaction of decree.