AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The plaintiff (appellant) seeks to set aside a sale of his Immovable property under a distress for rent.
It is contended that, because a bid equal to the amount of the arrears was made for a portion of the plaintiff''s property which had been so
distrained for arrears of rent, the landlord''s claims was thereby satisfied u/s 33 of Act VIII of 1865 though the amount bid was not paid; and also
that a subsequent sale of the rest of his property was illegal as the only remedy lay in. taking proceedings against the defaulting purchaser. We
cannot agree with this contention see Anandra v Bapuji v. Shekh Baba ILR 2 Bom. 562. The arrear is only satisfied by a sale when the amount bid
is paid, till when the debt is still subsisting Khiroda Moyee Dossee v. Golam Somdanee 21 W.R. 149. Notice to the plaintiff of the second sale
was not necessary u/s 39 of Act VIII of 1865.
There was no allegation in the plaint nor proof that the requirements of the law in regard to publication of the second sale were not complied
with. Even if there were any irregularity in that; respect, we are of opinion that that would not be a sufficient ground for setting aside the sale.
The second appeal is dismissed with costs.