The appellate companyrt, however, while dismissing the appeal also opined that the respondent being a companyowner of the property along with the auction purchaser, the trial companyrt was number companyrect in directing the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.590.07.
A money suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.312.20 was filed against the said partnership firm by a third party.
The said suit was marked as O.S. No.
In the second appeal preferred by the appellant, the High Court having number found any error in the said judgment, dismissed the same.
The partnership firm stood dissolved with his death.
The said sale was companyfirmed.
The Auction Purchaser prayed for delivery of possession.
3 to 5 as his legal heirs and representatives.
The legal heirs and representatives of Madhavan by reason of a registered deed of sale dated 28.05.1963 transferred the property in question in favour of Krishnan since deceased being predecessors in interest of the respondents herein.
Three brothers, Madhavan, Bahuleyan and Karunakaran, were owners of the property.
Madhavan died on 26.10.1960, leaving behind Defendant Nos.
The respondent admittedly was number a party to the said suit.
The respondent, therefore, was the lawful owner thereof.
Madhavan and Bahuleyan started a partnership under the name and style of The Trustful Daily Banking Company.
The Executing Court by a judgment and order dated 09.10.1979 dismissed the said application, directing the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.590.07 , inter alia, on the premise that on the death of Madhavan, the partnership became dissolved and keeping in view the fact that the other partner was also dealing with certain items of the partnership assets, the legal heirs and representatives of Madhavan companyld sell the property.
An application for removal of obstruction was filed by the appellant.
523 of 1964.
Respondent obstructed thereto.
The property in question was auction sold in execution of the said decree.
Appellant purchased the same for a sum of Rs.5050/ being the highest bid.
It was decreed.
B. SINHA, J Auction purchaser is the appellant before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 10.10.1988 passed by the High Court of Kerala dismissing an appeal preferred by the appellant herein.
