Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

S.S. DAYANANDA versus K.S. NAGESH RAO AND ORS.

Decided
19 February 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 208 · 1997 INSC 162
Also cited as
  • (1997) 4 SCC 451 (10 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 3 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Delay condoned.

p. 208, margin F

This special leave petition arises from the judgment and order dated July 16, 1996 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in C.R.P. No. 5643 of 1990.

p. 208, margin F

The respondent suffered a decree in a sum of Rs. 3,825.85 for recovery of which his property was brought to sale on December 18, 1978 and the petitioner purchased the same for a sum of Rs. 67, 000. An application was filed by the respondent under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) impugning the legality of the sale conducted. The executing Court dismissed the application by order dated August 16, 1990. On appeal, the appellate Court set aside the order of the executing Court and allowed the petition declaring that the sale was illegal. On revision, the High Court by the impugued order has confirmed the same. The finding recorded by the appellate Court and the High Court is that non-compliance of the procedure required under Order XXI, Rule 64, CPC had vitiated the sale.

pp. 208–209, margin G

It is contended for the petitioner that the executing Court had found that the adequacy of consideration is not a ground for setting aside the sale but the appellate Court and the High Court have not gone into that aspect of the matter. The appellant having purchased the property valued in the proclamation at Rs. 85,000, the sale for Rs. 67,000 was adequate and, therefore, the sale could not be set aside. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that the High Court has noted that the procedural compliance of Order XXI, Rule 64, CPC was not adhered to which is a mandatory requirement as held by this Court in Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand & Rajinder Singh, [1991) 1 SCC 131. Equally the sale consideration of the property was in excess of the execution. Under these circumstances, the High Court is justified in confirming the order of the appellate Court setting aside the sale.

p. 209, margin B

The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. R.P. Petition dismissed.

p. 209, margin D