https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275958 Marshalling under Sections 56 and 81 of the Transfer of Property Act did not help the subsequent purchasers, because the decree contained no mandatory order of sale and no superior equity required the mortgagee to proceed first against other mortgaged properties; the objection therefore failed. By contrast, where a mortgaged estate vested in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act before confirmation of an auction sale, the sale was not yet absolute under Order 21 Rule 92 CPC and the execution remained pending. Sections 4(d) and 4(e) then barred continuation of the proceeding and confirmation of the sale, so the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed further. The appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 03 Sep 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Oct 2018 18:23:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275958 Marshalling under Sections 56 and 81 of the Transfer of Property Act did not help the subsequent purchasers, because the decree contained no mandatory order of sale and no superior equity required the mortgagee to proceed first against other mortgaged properties; the objection therefore failed. By contrast, where a mortgaged estate vested in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act before confirmation of an auction sale, the sale was not yet absolute under Order 21 Rule 92 CPC and the execution remained pending. Sections 4(d) and 4(e) then barred continuation of the proceeding and confirmation of the sale, so the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed further. The appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Sep 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275958