District Munsif, Nellore, on 14.12.1990 sustained the objection regarding the bar of limitation, which made the first respondent move the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in revision, The High Court on 29.11.1993 allowed the revision petition of the first respondent, holding that April 15, 1924.
The appeals against orders dated 15,4.1924, disallowing objections, were preferred before the High Court, on July 21, 1924.
The sales were companyfirmed by the executing companyrt on April 22, 1924.
Having obtained the sale certificate, an application under Order 21 Rule 95 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was moved by the auction purchaser first respondent on 9.11.1989, seeking delivery of possession of the auctioned house.
The sale was thus companyfirmed by the companyrt on 7.8.1984.
On January 7, 1977, a preliminary decree was passed by the companyrt in his favour.
Order 21.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered Pattam Khader Khan V. Pattam Sardar Khan Anr.
A sale certificate was issued in favour of the auction purchaser about five and quarter years later on 9.11.1989.
19, 1928 and June 6, 1928 respectively.
The Commissioner becoming seisin of the matter, reported to the trial companyrt that the house was number partible and resort be had to a sale thereof, so that the sale proceeds can be apportioned amongst the company sharers.
Applications for delivery of possession under Orders 21 Rule 95 CPC were made by the appellants therein on September 10, 1928.
The applications were within the prescribed period of limitation if companyputed from the date of the issuance of sale certificates, but beyond the prescribed period of limitation companyputed from the date when the sales were companyfirmed.
To recall, March 17,1927, the day from which the period of limitation was viewed to start, was the day when the appeals were dismissed by the High Court and number the day on which the sale certificates were issued by the executing Court.
Sales certificates were issued by the executing Court on May.
The matter in this way stood finalised.
A public auction was thus on permission companyducted by the Commissioner, whereby the sale was knocked down in favour of the first respondent, Pattam Sardar Khan numberother than the son of the plaintiff, at a price of Rs.17,000/ .
Thereafter, the plaintiff second respondent made an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for effecting partition, which was allowed.
for Ms.Chitra Markandeya, Adv.
An objection was raised thereto by the appellant stating that since the application of the first respondent was barred by the limitation prescribed under Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963, numberorder for delivery of possession companyld be given in favour of the first respondent, The executing companyrt of the.
for K.R.Nagaraja, Adv.
Pattam Khader Khan, the appellant herein, was one of the defendants therein.
J U D G M E N T Punchhi,J. Pattam Rasool, the second respondent herein, filed a suit before the Civil Court for partition and separate possession, claiming one sixth share in a residential house in the town of Nellore in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
for the appellant Markandeya, Adv.
for the Respondents.
