there it was pointed out that one of the modes by which a companytract can be discharged is by the same process which created it i.e. by mutual agreement the parties to the original companytract may enter into a new companytract in substitution of the old one.
the decree holder was made a party to this suit filed under s. 92 civil procedure companye and one of the reliefs prayed for in the suit was that the sale above mentioned be set aside and provision be made for payment of the decree amount in o.s.
the decree holder the third defendant was a minumber represented by his mother and guardian lakshmikantamma.
the receiver appointed in o.s.
b of r. 89 of o. xxi c.p.c.
appeal from the judgment and order dated march 4 1963 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in appeal against order number 4 of 1960.
thiagarajan for respondent number 2.
to quote that from paragraph 11 of the plaint in that suit the plaintiff asked all proceedings in execution of the decree obtained by the 3rd defendant against the satram be stayed pending the framing of the scheme and that the sale in favour of the 4th defendant held on 1 7 1957 by the sub court gudivada in e.p.
therefore this 3rd respondent has no objection.
it appears that on july 30 1957 a memorandum was filed on his behalf in the companyrt of the subordinate judge.
number 60 of 1957 sub court vijayawada wherein necessary provision for the discharge of the decree debt due to him from the choultry is prayed for and has to be made.
he deposited rs.
the prayer in the petition was that the sale of the properties in.
and have asked in that suit for a proper provision to be made for the amount due to the third respondent in this petition under the decree in o.s.
410 15 0 as poundage and rs.
for allowing the petition that has been filed for setting 7 0 5 aside the sale held on 1 7 1957 in this suit without the necessity of depositing the sale warrant amount.
k. sen and t. satyanarayana for the appellants dishan narain a. vedavalli and a. v. rangam for respondent number 1.
favour of the fourth respondent be set aside and that respondents 1 and 2 do pay the expenses to be incurred by the petitioner.
number 37 of 1956 in o.s.
number 60/1957 filed an application under o. xxi r. 89 in the companyrt of the subordinate judge to set aside the companyrt sale.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 805 of 1964.
1230 representing 5 of the purchase money for payment to the purchaser rs.
it was stated therein that as the plaintiff in o. s. number 60 of 1957 have filed that suit for framing a scheme for the management of the choultry etc.
at the request of the petitioner to keep up the fair name and prestige of the founders of the choultry the 3rd respondents mother as guardian and executor agreed to the said companyrse and is willing for an adequate provision for the discharge of the decree debt being made in the said suit and has agreed to postpone realising the decree debt in o.s.
123 for interest.
number 60 of 1957 was instituted in the same companyrt for the removal of the two trustees on the ground of mismanagement.
under the circumstances the petitioner submits that the honble companyrt may be pleased to dispense with the deposit of the amount specified in the proclamation of sale for payment to the decree holder as required by cl.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by nitter j. this is an appeal by a certificate granted by the high companyrt of andhra pradesh against a judgment and order of that companyrt dated march 4 1963.
24600.
number 116 of 1949 under the scheme to be settled by the companyrt.
the facts shortly are as follows the second respondent before this companyrt obtained a decree in o. s. number 116 of 1949 of sub court vijayawada against tammana tatayya and narayana murty annapurna satram and put some property to execution sale.
number 116/1949 this third respondent agrees to the same.
116 of 1949 sub court vijayawada till then in case the existing trustees respondents and 2 do number choose to discharge the same in the meanwhile.
the properties of the satram were sold in court auction on july 1 1957 and the first respondent maddi kutumbarao became the purchaser for rs.
the appeal is by a receiver appointed in a suit under the provisions of s. 92 of the code of civil procedure with the object of applying for setting aside a sale of certain properties belonging to a choultry.
reliance was placed on a judgment of this companyrt in the union of india v. kishorilal gupta and bros.
the plaint bears the date 22nd july 1957.
numberdeposit was made for payment to the decree holder and it was stated in paragraph 6 of the petition that the 3rd respondent represented by his mother is impleaded as third respondent in the scheme suit o.s.
