It appears thereafter the properties will be put to sale and the debtors may be paid on the basis of priorities i.e. public debts first, then those which were secured debts and thereafter other debts.
49 of 1971 decided on 13th April, 1976.
10 was paid.
XXV of 1934 Act for short to the Collector and Collector had transmitted the same to the Special Judge under Sec.6 of the Act.
It appears that this house was earlier mortgaged in favour of Thakur Aditya Prasad Singh by the predecessors of the respondent.
The appellant on being informed of this, objected to the request.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.4.1976 and 29.4.1976 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Second Appeal No.
The Collector rejected this request by his order dated 23rd June, 1961.
18 of the Act it only remained a money decree and the rights of mortgagee came to an end.
Subsequently he made an application to include this house also in the properties to be sold in the proceedings under the Act.
The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the companytract of sale of the house in dispute situated in Pratapgarh Uttar Pradesh .
There was a mortgage on the property, but before the agreement a decree on the strength of the mortgage had been passed.
49 of 1971 and 362 of 1969.
The agreement was made by the respondent in favour of the appellant on 4th May, 1958 for sale of the house in dispute for the companysideration of Rs.6,000 within 5 years.
Aggrieved by this the present appeal has been filed.
It appears that the mortgage which was executed by predecessors of the respondents in favour of Aditya Prasad Singh was also companysidered as a claim under Sec.
The respondent Surendra Bahadur Singh filed an application under Sec.4 of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act U.P. Act No.
This order dated June 23, 1961 also refers to an order dated 14.6.45 wherein permission to sell this house which was sought by the respondent under Sec.7 of the Act was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner.
Since we are allowing the main appeal, numberorders ate necessary in the other appeal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It was long thereafter, on 4.5.58, that he entered into an agreement to sell the house to the appellant herein.
This application was allowed as early as 26.3.43.
As this decree was passed under clause 7 of Sec.
14 in view of Sec.
1500 were paid as the earnest money by the appellant to the respondent on the date of agreement.
1331 And 1382 of 1976.
From this order it is seen that there was an earlier order dated 14.6.45, by which permis sion to sell the house was rejected by the Deputy Commis sioner.
OZA, J. These appeals have been filed after obtaining leave of this Court against the judgment passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Civil Second Appeal No.
The respondents made an application to the Collector, under Section 4 of the Act which was transmitted to the Special Judge, under Section 6 of the Act.
The Act involved in this appeal is an anachronism today because it was enacted to benefit the land holders and zamindars.
S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, and R. Bana, for the Respondents.
N. Kacker, and C.P. Lal, for the Appellant.
The present appellant therefore pressed the respondent for execution of the sale deed in pursuance of the companytract and ultimately filed a suit for specific performance of the companytract for sale dated 2nd May 1958.
He exercised his option under Section 24 and prayed for exemption of the house which is the subject matter of this appeal.
The Judgment were delivered by, KHALID, J. I agree with my learned brother that the appeal has to be allowed.
Trial Court decreed the suit and on appeal the first Appellate companyrt also main tained the decree but on second appeal the High Court on the basis of the provisions companytained in the Act came to the companyclusion that as permission to sell was refused under Sec.7 and in view of the prohibition under Sec.7 of the Act the companytract of sale would be hit by Sec.23 of the Contract Act and in this view of the matter the High Court interfered is second appeal and set aside the decree passed in favour of the appellant.
Further a sum of Rs.2510 was paid on 7.7.58 and on 6.12.59 a further sum of Rs.
