Pandu Prabhu vs Juje Lobo

The Respondent obtained a decree for foreclosure u/s 86, Transfer of Property Act, and the time limited for redemption by the Defendant

having expired without being extended, the Respondent applied u/s 87 for an order absolutely debarring the Defendant from redeeming and for an

order for delivery of possession of the property to him. The orders were accordingly made. It is contended by the Appellant that the orders are

null and void because no notice of the application was given to the Defendant, Appellant and the case of Narayana Reddi v. Papayya ILR 22

Mad. 138. is relied upon. That case, no doubt, supports the contention, but that decision proceeds upon the view that the Defendant could apply

for an extension of the time for redemption only if and when the Plaintiff applies for an order absolute under the second paragraph of Section 87, a

view which has been dissented from by the Full Bench in Vedapuratti v. Vallabha Valiya Rajah ILR 25 Mad. 300. Following the decision of the

majority of the Full Bench in the case of Mallikarjunadu Setti v. Lingamurti Pantulu ILR 25 Mad. 244. which related to proceedings u/s 89 of the

Transfer of Property Act, we hold that the same view is applicable to proceedings u/s 87 and that such proceedings are proceedings in execution

of the decree passed u/s 86 of that Act. In the present case the application was made within one year of the date of decree and therefore u/s 248,

Code of Civil Procedure, no notice was necessary to the judgment-debtor (Defendant).