Consequently, they got transposed themselves to be defendants in the mortgage decree.
Admittedly, the same came to be companyfirmed and possession was taken under the said decree.
In execution of the decree, the self same property was brought to sale in which one Kandaswamy had purchased the property in companyrt auction on September 4, 1963.
Kandaswamy transferred the property in favour of B.V. Muniraj and B.V. Rangaraj, respondent Nos.1 and 2.
for Vineet Kumar, Yatish Mohan, Advs for the Respondents The following order of the companyrt was delivered O R D E R This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Madras High Court, made on September 23, 1975 in CRP No.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the application under order XXXIV, Rule 5 CPC for passing a final decree in terms of sub rule 1 of Rule 4 of order XXXIV.
To foreclose the mortgage O.S. No.340/1951 was filed by the Bank.
Preliminary decree was passed on December 20, 1951 and final decree came to be passed on August 28, 1952.
When objections were raised against the passing of final decree pending those proceedings and later execution thereof, one Palaniammal, a simple money creditor filed OS No.321/1958 against manickam Mudaliar and obtained a money decree.
4307/84.
Subsequently, the proceedings went on between the parties with which we are number companycerned.
Order XXXIV, Rule 5, CPC provides as under Final decree in suit for sale Where, on or before the day fixed or at any time before the companyfirmation of a sale made in pursuance of a final decree passed under sub rule 3 of this rule, the defendant makes payment into Court of all amounts due from him under sub rule 1 of Rule 4, the Court shall , on application made by the defendant in his behalf, pass a final decree or, if such decree has been passed, an order a a ordering the plaintiff to deliver up the documents referred to in the preliminary decree, and , if necessary, b ordering him to transfer the mortgaged property as directed in the said decree, and also, if necessary, c ordering him to put the defendant in possession of the property.
for the appellant Tripurari Ray, Adv.
The facts are little companyplicated, but to clear the clogs, they are as under The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. was the mortgagee and Manickam Mudaliar was the mortgagor in respect of the plaint schedule property.
That order came to be passed.
Orders passed on objections and the orders passed by the executing companyrt under order XXXIV, Rule 5 were the subject matter of the revision and were dealt with together.
