The said petitions were dismissed by the executing companyrt by order dated April 21, 1986 and the sale was companyfirmed on April 8, 1987 and the sale certificate was granted to the appellant.
One of the grounds that was urged for setting aside the sale in the said petitions was that respondent No.
1 in respect of the other building.
These appeals are filed against the said orders of the High Court dated March 29,1994 and November 23, 1994.
who asserted that the petition schedule property was also brought to sale after attachment and was in fact sold by, the companyrt and it is also companyered by the sale certificate.
The appellant filed a review petition for the review of the said order of the High Court but the same was dismissed by order dated November 23, 1994.
Block No.
1 filed a revision petition, C.R.P. No.
The High Court was of the view that when respondent No.
67 and present No.
The Subordinate Judge, by order dated November 5, 1991, dis missed the said petition of respondent No.
yards and that the property that was sold pursuant to the auction and delivered was only the terraced building, the lower companyrt ought to have appointed a Commissioner in order to find whether in fact there is any upstair building in the said site and that if there is also upstair building and vacant site within the boundaries the appellant is number entitled to take delivery of the upstair building as the only property that was brought to sale was the terraced building within the boundaries mentioned therein and further that the sale certificate does number refer to the upstair building and the vacant site.
The High Court, therefore, remitted the matter to the executing companyrt with the direction to appoint a Commissioner to make local inspection of the petition schedule property and if, within the boundaries mentioned in the sale certificate, there is an upstair building which is number included in the sale certificate and the vacant site adjacent to it he may direct redelivery of that property and if there is numberupstair building and the vacant site within the boundaries mentioned in the sale certificate, the Subordinate Judge may dispose of the execution application in accordance with law.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Subordinate Judge respondent No.
14/7 and relates only to the terraced building and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of respondent No.
During the pendency of the said stilt respondent No.
Along with the said petitions respondent No.
The boundaries of the petition schedule property are thus described by respondent No.
148 of 1970 filed by respondent No.
After the delivery of the possession respondent No.
The said revision petition was allowed by the High Court by judgment dated March 29, 1994.
1 raised the companytention that within the boundaries there is other upstair building with vacant site of 300 and odd sq.
1 in O.S. No.
5 lakhs and the bid was too low.
Before issuance of the sale certificate respondent No.
397 of 1985 and 506 of 1985 under Order 21 Rules 90 and 91, C.P.C., for setting aside the sale which was held on March 26, 1985.
In the sale certificate dated April 8, 1987 the property that was sold was thus described in the Schedule East Godavari District, Rajahmundry Taluk, Gandhi nagaram.
1 had only 1/4th share in the property and further that the property was worth Rs.
In pursuance of the sale certificate the appellant obtained possession of the entire property within the boundaries as mentioned in the sale certificate on April 22, 1987.
3,01,000/ was the highest.
In execution of the said decree the property of respondent No.
It was held that the petition schedule property is located within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule to the exccu tion petition as well as in the schedule attached to the sale certificate.
A money decree was passed against respondent No.
1 filed a petition, F.A. No 478 of 1990, in the execution proceedings, under Section 47 read with Section 151 C.P.C. wherein he prayed for a declaration that the sale certificate does number pass title to the appellant in respect of the property mentioned in the schedule to the said application, hereinafter referred to as the petition schedule property, on the ground that even though there was numberattachment and sale of the said property and even though the appellant did number purchase the same and even though the sale certificate does number companytain it the appellant had taken the delivery of possession of the said property in the execution proceedings.
According to the Subordinate Judge the sale proclamation and sale certificate clearly go to show that the property purchased by the appellant extends upto the park on the west and upto the house of M.V. Reddy on the east and that the petition schedule property is part and parcel of the property within the said boundaries and, therefore, the petition schedule property was also purchased by the appellant under the sale certificate and the appellant was entitled for the entire property including the petition schedule property under the sale certificate and is entitled to take the delivery of the entire property including the petition schedule property.
1 filed a suit, O.S. No.
21 6 terraced house, situated within the following boundaries East House of M.V. Reddy South Main Road West Park North House of Mullapudi Satyanaranayam The same description was given in the sale proclamation.
3998 of 1991, in the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The Subordinate Judge rejected the companytention that there were two buildings, the terraced building and the upstair building, and held that there is only one structure on the terrace which looks like a stair case room and there is absolutely numberupstair building at all and that the major portion of the building is aterraced one and that in spite of the location of a small room on the terrace the building remains a terraced building only.
11, Rajahmundry Belonging to the judgment debtors and named as Chandrika Nilayam in S.S. No.
107/87, in the companyrt of Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry for a declaration that the sale certificate dated April 8, 1987 issued in favour of the appellant does number pass title to the property bearing Door No.
C. AGRAWAL, J. 1.leave granted.
1 had filed petitions, E.A. Nos.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
These appeals are by the auction purchaser of a property sold to him in execution proceedings.
1 was sold by auction on March 26, 1985 to the appellant whose bid of Rs.
1 in the said pension East House belonging to M.V. Reddy West Terraced building number taken de livery by the first respondent appellant herein South Main Road North House belonging, to Mullapudi Satyanarayana The said petition was companytested by the appellant as well as by the decree holder respondent No.
1 also filed a schedule which gave the description of the property in the same terms as mentioned in the sale proclamation and sale certificate.
