9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting setting aside sale of property under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure based on property being immovable, collusion with Bank Officers, and violation of sale procedure. Analysis: The appeal challenged the rejection of I.A. 7 filed under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to set aside the sale of property. The property in question, a Centerless Bar Turning Machine, was sold in execution of a decree for a sum lower than its alleged value due to being embedded in the factory. The appellants argued that the property should be considered immovable, worth more than the sale price, and the sale procedure was not followed correctly. The key contention was whether the property auctioned was immovable. The learned Counsel for the appellants relied on legal interpretations of immovable property under Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, citing precedents like J. Kuppanna Chetty v. Collector of Anantapur and K.N.K. Iyengar v. Vijaya Bank. On the other hand, the respondent's Counsel cited a conflicting decision in South Indian Bank Limited v. V. Krishna Chettiar, arguing that machinery fixed to the earth was not immovable property. The central question for consideration was whether the property auctioned was immovable. The judgment emphasized the definition of immovable property, highlighting that for chattel to be immovable, it must be permanently attached to the earth. The court referenced the Transfer of Property Act to define attachment to earth, emphasizing rootedness, embedding, or attachment for permanent beneficial enjoyment. Analyzing the fixtures of the Centerless Bar Turning Machine, the court concluded it did not qualify as immovable property as it was mounted on a cement base and fastened with bolts and nuts, akin to the decision in Perumal Naicker v. T. Ramaswami Kone. The court dismissed the appeal, stating the property was not immovable, and the auction procedure was valid, finding no collusion or legal violations. In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the property auctioned was not immovable, and the procedure followed was valid. The judgment clarified the legal interpretation of immovable property and highlighted the importance of permanent attachment to earth for such classification. The appellants' failure to prove collusion or legal violations led to the dismissal of the appeal without costs.
|
