1,12,500.
Before the learned single Judge of the Madras High Court who heard the suit, it was companytended on behalf of the present appellant that the sale was invalid in the absence of numberice thereof to him.
Apparently the plea was abandoned at the hearing because numberissue was raised thereon at the trial of the suit or in appeal to the Division Bench.
The appellant filed an appeal before the High Court of Madras alleging identical grounds in appeal.
By his statement of case filed in this companyrt, the appellant sought to companytend that the provisions of s. 69 of the Transfer of Property Act allowing the exercise of the power of sale after numberice to any one of the mortgagors offended Arts.
The legatees executed a general power of attorney in favour of one Gangadhar Bhatta, the 8th defendant, companyferring on him all powers including the power, to realise the amounts due under the mortgage dated September 21, 1944 and to take other necessary steps.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated March 11, 1964 of the Madras High Court in Original Side Appeal No.
The sale deed in favour of the bank was executed on July 4, 1953.
in his petition.
The sale was widely advertised and was adjourned from time to time till April 26, 1953 when the property was purchased by the 1st respondent, the Indian Bank Ltd., for a sum of Rs.
There is numberdispute that it was number served on the appellant.
The facts there were as follows.
CIVIL APPELLATE Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No 505 of 1965.
The bank filed a suit on April 26, 1954 praying for vacant possession of portions of the property, decree for mesne profits against some of the defendants and other reliefs.
19 and 14 of the Constitution and as such were liable to be struck down.
In paragraph 2 of his written statement he had raised the plea that the power of sale in terms of s. 69 of the Transfer of Property Act was ultra vires the Constitution of India as being discriminatory and opposed to the fundamental rights of citizens.
1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Miter, J. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras on special leave granted by this Court.
11 of 1960.
S. K. Sastri and M. S. Narasimhah, for respondent No.
On April 22, 1950 the appellant before us purchased a small portion of the property from the mortgagors, the vendors companyenanting to get the property mentioned in the schedule to the document released from the mortgages mentioned within a period of one year, in default whereof the vendee was to be at liberty to enforce his rights to companypel the vendors to do so in appropriate proceedings and the vendors agreed to indemnify the purchaser for all such expenses and damages.
After losing in the High Court, the appellant applied for special leave to this Court which was granted raising six grounds.
The owners of the property situate in the City of Madras created a mortgage over it in 1944 in favour of one Jagmohan Prasad Bhatta with power to him to sell the mortgaged property without the intervention of the Court.
Thiagaraian and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the appellant.
He also rejected the companytention put forward on behalf of the appellant that he was a bona fide purchaser within the meaning of s. 51 of the Transfer of Property Act and as such entitled to the improvements effected by him, namely, the companyt of erecting the structures he had put up thereon.
The original mortgagee died on March 14, 1950 leaving a will and bequeathing the entire property in equal shares to several persons.
The executor to the will of the deceased executed a deed of transfer in favour of the said legatees on May 14, 1951.
