AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The only question to decide in this revision is whether the petitioner had a locus standi to present an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil
Procedure Code. There was a little doubt at one time as to what was actually sold in the execution of the decree and I called for a report on that
point. The learned District Judge has reported that the melwaram interest alone was sold and the proclamation of sale has also been sent which
shows the same. There is no doubt on that point now and this is conceded by the petitioner''s learned Counsel.
The only question then is whether the petitioner who was a kudivaramdar could make an application objecting to the sale under Order 21, Rule
90, Civil Procedure Cole. If his interests are those of a kudivaramdar, they cannot be, within the language of Order 21, Rule 90 Civil Procedure
Code, said to have been in any way affected by the sale of the melwaram. interest. There is an observation in Adenna v. Chinna Ramayya (1927)
54 M.L.J. 445 : ILR 51 Mad. 770 which confirms me in my opinion.
The revision petition therefore fails and is dismissed with costs which will be shared by the decree-holder and the auction purchaser.