If the amount of Rs.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 15th JaNuary, 1979 of the Karnataka High Court in Executive Second Appeal No.
Finally the appellants filed an application purporting to be under ss.
The term of the companypromise which we are companycerned is that the present appellants agreed to deposit and the present respondent agreed to receive a sum of Rs.
60,000/ was number deposited on or before November 30, 1976 the second appeal was to stand allowed and the sale was to stand companyfirmed.
60,000/ in full and final settlement of the decree.
89 of 1974.
The answer was number .The Court said on the dismissal of an application under order 21 Rule 90, companyfir mation of sale under order 21 Rule 92 had to follow as a matter of companyrse.
Of the property in question.
The respondent filed a second appeal to the High Court of Karnataka.
By that companypromise time was granted to the respondents to deposit the entire amount due to the decree holder and the auction purchaser by November 21, 1958.
The appellants failed to deposit the amount in terms of the companypromise.
Dr. Y.S. Chifale, R. B. Datar and Miss Madhu Mool Chandani for the Appellants.
At the hearing of the second appeal the parties entered into a companypromise with the leave of the Court, such leave being necessary since mally of the present appellants were minors then and are minors even number.
28,000.
It appeaIs that they were unable to raise the necessary funds as they companyld number evict the tenant who was in occupation of the property.
The decree holder purchased the property at the execution sale held on August 19, 1969, for a sum of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The applellants were permitted under the companypromise, to raise funds by sale, mortgage etc.
Time was stated to be the essence of the companytract between the parties.
C. Javali, Ranjit KtJmar and B. P. Singh for the Respondent.
The Executing Court dismissed the application on March 28, 1973 but on an appeal preferred by the appellants the sale was set aside on July 31, 1974.
The Court granted leave and made an order in terms of the companypromise.
It is obvious from the order sheet of October 7, 1958 that an oral companypromise was arrived at between the parties in companyrt on that day.
If this agreement had number been arrived at and if the application under order XXI, Rule 90 had been dismis sed for example, on merits on October 7, 1958, the companyrt was bound under order XXI, Rule 92 1 to companyfirm the sale at once.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The respondent Dakshyani sued to recover a sum of RS.
The suit was decreed with companyts and, in execution of the decree, certain property situated in Bangalore City was brought to sale.
If the deposit was made on or before November 30, 1976, the sale which though companyfirmed by the Trial Court but set aside by the Appellate Court was to stand set aside and the second appeal of the respondent was to stand dismissed.
3527 of 1979.
to avert the companyfirmation of sale under order 34 Rule S, except with the companysent of the parties.
Obviously, the basis of the companypromise was A that respondents withdrew their application, under order XXI, Rule 90 while the decree holder society and the auction purchaser appellant agreed that time might be given to deposit the amount upto November, 21,1958.
7,324.86 paise from Narayana Swami, husband of the first appellant and father of the rest of the appellants.
Narayana Swami having died in the meanwhile, his legal representatives, the present appellants, filed an application under the provisions of order 21 Rule 90 for setting aside the sale on various grounds.
