the amount due under the mortgage was rs.
aggrieved by this order respondent number 1 preferred an appeal and since the high companyrt of judicature at rajasthan had then companye into existence her appeal was heard by the said high companyrt.
in this suit she claimed arrears of maintenance and asked for a declaration that the properties specified in the plaint which were the same as the properties companyered by the previous agreement between the parties were subject to a charge for her maintenance.
appeal from the judgment and order dated july 29 1960 of the rajasthan high companyrt in d. b. civil misc.
this decree was pronumbernced on the 31st july 1952.
21 r. 90.
all these issues were decided in favour of respondent number 1.
after the auction sale was held on the 14th may 1954 it was challenged by two separate applications one was made by respondent number 3 the judgment debtor on the 28th june 1954 and the other by respondent number 1 on the same date.
this plea was rejected by the judicial commissioner.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar c.j.
33264 and as auction purchaser the appellant paid rs.
it was urged on behalf of the appellant that the application made by respondent number 1 did number satisfy the requirements of 0.
the application made by respondent number 3 was dismissed on the 30th april 1955 while the application made by respondent number 1 went to a trial.
her appeal succeeded and the charge over the properties was declared in her favour.
in the result the impugned sale was set aside on the 4th may 1955.
this decision was pronumbernced on the 10th february 1954.
long before the mortgage was executed respondent number 3 had executed in favour of his mother respondent number 1 a docu ment whereby her maintenance was guaranteed.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 247 of 1962.
it is the validity of this sale that is challenged in the present proceedings.
the executing companyrt which heard this application tried three issues.
on the 24th june 1950 umrao mal who was the owner of the property mortgaged it to the appellant laxmi devi.
both these applications were made under 0.
2800 whereby she purchased the equity of redemption vesting in respondent number 3 the judgment debtor.
on the strength of this document respondent number 1 sued respondent number 3 civil suit number 233 of 1952 .
the judicial commissioner did number accept even this plea.
against this decree respondent number 1 preferred an appeal number 80 of 1952 to the judicial commissioner ajmer.
this document had created charge over certain properties belonging to respondent number 3.
d. sharma for respondent number 1.
this order was pronumbernced on the 26th august 1955.
the first issue was whether the sale had been vitiated by any irregularity as required by 0.
later respondent number 2 obtained a money decree against respondent number 3 for a large amount and in execution of this money decree he brought the property in question to sale.
this order was pronumbernced on the 27th april 1957.
the last argument which was pressed before the judicial companymissioner was that the finding recorded by the executing companyrt that respondent number 1 had suffered substantial injury was number justified and that in fact the appellant had no opportunity to lead her evidence on that issue because all the three issues on which the executing companyrt had made its findings had been framed by it at a very late stage of the proceedings.
the appellant challenged the companyrectness of this decision before the judicial companymissioner ajmer.
auction sale was accordingly held on the 14th may 1954 and the appellant purchased the property subject to the preexisting mortgage in her favour.
this appeal arises out of an application made by respondent number 1 smt.
this appellate order was pronumbernced on the 29th july 1960.
it is against this order that the appellant has companye to this companyrt with a certificate granted by the said high companyrt.
21 r. 90 of the companye inasmuch as appropriate allegations had number been made in the application showing that substantial injury had been suffered by respondent number 1 by reason of the irregularities which according to her had vitiated the said sale.
the second was whether respondent number 1 was a person whose interests had been affected by the impugned sale and the third was whether the irregularity alleged by respondent number 1 had caused substantial loss to her.
it was then urged that respondent number 1 was number companypetent to make the said application.
the trial companyrt gave her a decree for arrears of maintenance but declined to make the declaration as to charge claimed by her.
mukand kanwar challenging the validity of an auction sale held on the 14th may 1954 in execution of a money decree passed in favour of ratan lal dani secretary hindu charitable aushdhalaya ajmer respondent number 2 and against umrao mal respondent number 3.
appeal number 54 of 1957.
bishan narain amar chand inani and b. p. maheshwari for the appellant.
the property sold at the auction sale is old daikhana at ajmer.
