That prayer was rejected.
19,260 in the companyrt, being 25 of the purchase price and later he deposited a further sum of Rs.
The auction purchaser challenged that order in appeal No.
That application was allowed by the learned single Judge on December 11, 1958.
He however, failed to pay the balance of the purchase price whereupon the appellant made an application that the property be put to a fresh sale.
The auction purchaser prayed that the Sheriff do pay to him the balance after deducting therefrom the sum of Rs.
22,000 be paid by the, Sheriff out of the sale proceeds lying with him, to the Official Receiver in satisfaction of the decree obtained by Ganga Prosad Gupta against the appe llant, in execution of which the two sales were held.
42,080 with interest at 6 per annum.
Accordingly, the property was put to sale on March 20, 1957 and once again Pashupati Nath Biswas was the highest bidder.
From the Judgment Order dated the 21st March, 1967 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal Nos.
This prayer was also rejected.
9, 10 and 43 of 1959.
The two other appeals were disposed of companysistently with that judgment.
9 of 1959 against the order rejecting this application.
10 of 1959.
The proclamation of 1957, relying on an affidavit of one Sudhansu Kumar Roy says undoubtedly that the, appellants one fifth share was free from encumbrances but the tabular statement of encumbrances included in the proclamation refers to a Term Lease and Agreement of 1955 and the proclamation says The lease of 1955 is for five years from October, 1955 and the same is in respect of the Restaurant Bombay Crown companytaining the entire ground floor excenting two road side shops and was executed by one Abde Ali Abdul Hussain, in favour of Ashlifaq and Jaffar Hussain.
61,340 apart from the companyt and expenses of the sales.
77,040 this time the sale was knocked down in his favour for a paltry sum of Rs.
The auction purchaser had also filed an application asking that the appellant be restrained from taking execution proceedings for recover ing the deficiency in price.
The auction purchaser Pashupati Nath Biswas having died on April 16, 1964, the first respondent Sailendra Nath Biswas came on the record of the, appeals as his Executor and legal representative.
The three appeals were heard together and disposed of by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court by three separate judgments.
On December 15, 1967 the High Court granted to the appellant leave to file an appeal to this Court under Article 133 1 a and c of the Constitution.
In the meanwhile, on May 16, 1957 the Sheriff certified under Order XXI, Rule 71 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the deficiency in the price realised in the second sale due to the default of the auction purchaser, after giving him credit in the sum of Rs, 15,000 paid by him in the first sale, amounted to Rs.
By its.
This companytention was based on the circumstance that though the property was situated in Venkatapuram it was wrongly described as lying within the limits of Borrampalem.
43 of 1959.
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal number 10, 2332 2333 of 1968.
A learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowed that application and direct by an order dated August 19, 1958 that Pashupati Nath Biswas do pay to the appellant a sum of Rs.
In 1951, one Ganga Prosad Gupta obtained two money decrees against the appellant and another person in the total sum of Rs.
Questions raised in the High Court by the rival parties as regards the disbursement by the Sheriff of the balance remaining with him after.satisfying Ganga Prosad Guptas decree are incidental to the main companytroversy arising out of the appellants application under Order XXI, Rule 71, Code of Civil Procedure.
The auction purchaser filed appeal No.
The appellant then filed an application for an order directing that the Sheriff do pay to him all the moneys lying with him after deducting the companyt and the expenses of the sales.
4 A, Chowringhee Road, Cal cutta, belonged to the appellant Gopal Krishna Das and four others, each having an undivided one fifth share therein.
This order was challenged by Pashupati Nath Biswas in appeal No.
judgment dated March 21, 1967 the Division Bench allowed appeal No.
10 of 1959, and dismissed the application filed by the appellant under order XXI, Rule 71 for recovering from the auction purchaser the deficiency in the sale price.
K. Sen, P. K. Chatterjee, Rathin Das and Mrs. Anjana Sen, for respondent No.
12,378.
22,000 and the companyt and the expenses of the Sheriff.
K. Sen and G. S. Chatterjee, for the appellant.
Ganga Prosad Guptas estate, it seems, had companye to be vested in the Official Receiver, he is the second respondent to these appeals.
77,040.
It may be mentioned that pursuant to an application dated April 13, 1957 filed by the auction purchaser himself, it was directed by an order dated May 21, 1957 that a sum of Rs.
But whereas in the first sale he had offered a bid of Rs.
The second sale was companyfirmed on May 29, 1957.
On June 28, 1957 the appellant made an application under Order XXI, Rule 71 C.P.C. for recovering the deficiency from Pashupati Nath Biswas.
In execution of these decrees, the undivided one fifth share of the appellant was put to sale on June 16, 1954 and was purchased by Pashupati Nath Biswas, the father of the first respondent, for Rs.
1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. Premises No.
Pashupati Nath Biswas deposited Rs.
15,000.
