TMI Blog1955 (2) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of this second appeal was that delivery in pursuance of the sale certificate having been once effected, the execution Court was incompetent to order delivery of the same properties to the auction-purchaser a second time. This contention overlooks the fact that the first delivery was cancelled by the Court as a result of an application by Defendant 11 stating that the record of delivery was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tence as the result of fraud, and that there had been no real delivery. The contention that the order on Defendant 11's application was passed without notice to Defendant 10 and is not binding on her is also unsustainable, for Defendant 11 was the karanavan of the sub-tarwad of Defendants 10 and 11 and he filled the petition to cancel the first delivery on behalf of the said sub-tarwad. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
