Upon appeal by the judgment debtor to the High Court, the principal companytention of the judgment debtor was that numberappeal lay to the District Court.
There were, it appears, various proceedings after this at the end of which, on 19 May 1964, there was an order directing the receiver to companyplete the sale within one month from that date and Kanta Prosad was directed to pay the balance of the purchase money within that time.
In due companyrse, the companyrt made an order in terms of that prayerOn appeal against that order in the appellate companyrt the original order was companyfirmed.
The Division Bench who heard the appeal referred the case to the Full Bench on account of certain companyflicting decisions in the High Court of Calcutta.
The lower appellate companyrt allowed the appeal and ordered the auction purchaser to be put into khas possession under r. 95.
Hence this present appeal.
While making the order of reference the Division Bench held that numberappeal lay before the District Court because the matter did number companye within r. 97 on two grounds, namely i because it was number a question arising between the parties to the suit and ii it was number a matter relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree.
Upon an appeal by the decree holder auction purchaser the appeal was resisted mainly on the companytention that numberappeal lay.
the judgment and order dated April 29, 1966 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No.
On 19 June 1964 the purchaser through his attorney requested the receiver to make over possession of premises No.
On 17 June 1964 the receiver executed the companyveyance on behalf of the judgment debtor and the insolvent.
109 of 1965.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Appeal by certificate from.
The short facts of the case are as follows.
1323 of 1967.
In May 1956 one Debidutt Bhagwati.
On 23 July 1964 the receiver was further requested by the attorney to make over possession of the premises by the issue of letters of attorney addressed to each tenant in respect of portions which were tenanted and to make over vacant possession of that portion of the premises which was in the occupation of the judgment debtor to the purchaser.
as earnest money.
The purchaser was by the same order directed to pay interest on the balance of the purchase money from 13 June 1963 to 19 March 1964 in default whereof there was an order number to execute the companyveyance.
P. Maheshwari and Suresh Seth, for Respondent No.
C. Manchanda and V. Maya Krishnan, for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUKHERJEA, J. This appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Calcutta High Court raises an important question as to whether after an auction sale in execution of a decree a decree holder auction purchaser can move the executing companyrt for delivery of vacant possession of an immovable property or whether he has to file a separate suit to get that possession.
13,000.
On 17th November 1964 an application was made praying inter alia for an order upon the judgment debtor to deliver vacant possession of the premises in their occupation to the receiver and also a direction to the receiver to deliver vacant possession of the same to the purchaser.
Sharad Manohar and B. P. Maheshwari, for Respondent No.
Prasad obtained a money decree against Harnandrai Badridas.
