JUDGMENT

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:- We grant special leave and proceed to dispose of the appeal.

2. In O.S. No. 821/11973, there was ex parte decree against the appellant for payment of Rs. 2,000/- and cost. In execution of the decree, the appellants land S. No. 116 at Bayanguda village measuring 10 acres was brought to Court sale. His small farm house was also located in the land. In the auction held the respondent purchased the land for Rs. 17,000/-. The sale was subject to the prior mortgage for Rs. 2,000/- in favour of the Land-mortgage Bank Jangareddigudem. On 31 May, 1976 the sale was confirmed. On 26 July 1976, the appellant filed application under Order XXI, Rule 90 for setting aside the sale. He impeached the auction sale broadly on three grounds namely: (i) That he was the owner of only one acre of land and the remaining 9 acres in the said survey belonged to his father-Siddaiah, (ii) That the land was worth about Rs. 70,000/ - but it was sold for a very low price of Rs. 17,000/- by fraudulent procedure followed by the authorities and (iii) That he was not served with notice before attachment or sale.

3. In support of the above allegations, the appellant entered the witness box as PW 2. He has also examined four other witnesses besides producing documentary evidence marked as Exs.A-1 to A-3. The auction purchaser in turn has examined three witnesses.

4. On appraisal of the evidence, the executing court - the Principal District Munsif,, Kovvur, rejected the application of the appellant. He held that the sale was not vitiated by fraud or irregularity. The appeal against that order was dismissed by learned subordinate judge at Kovvur. Before the appellate court, one other contention was argued on behalf of the appellant. It was contended that the executing court ought to have sold only such portion of the land as it would satisfy the decretal dues and the sale of the entire 10 acres was illegal and without authority. The appellate court rejected that contention for the reason that it Is a single piece of land and could not have been divided into parcels. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh also dismissed the appellants revision, but expressed no opinion as to whether a portion of the land could have been sold to satisfy the decree.

5. Hence this appeal.

6. The principal question that has been highlighted before us relates to the legality of the sale of 10 acres of land without considering whether a portion of the land could have been sold to satisfy the decree. It is said that the total sum claimed in the execution was Rs. 2,395.50. The relevant provision which has a bearing on the question is R. 64, 0. XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure and it reads as follows:

"Order XXI, Rule 64: Power to order property attached to be sold and proceeds to be paid to persons entitled - Any Court executing a decree may order that any property attached by it and liable to sale, or such portion thereof as rnay seem necessary to satisfy the decree, shall be sold, and that the proceeds of such sale, or a sufficient portion thereof, shall be paid to the party entitled under the decree to receive the same."

7. It is of importance to note from this provision that in all execution proceedings, the Court has to first decide whether it is necessary to bring the entire attached property to sale or such portion thereof as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree. If the .property is large and the decree to be satisfied is small, the Court must bring only such portion of the property. the proceeds of which would be sufficient to satisfy the claim of the decree-holder It is immaterial whether the property is one or, several. Even if the property is one, if a separate portion could be sold without violating any provision of law only such portion of the property should be sold. This, in our opinion, is not just a discretion, but an obligation imposed on the Court. Care must be taken to put only such portion of the property to sale the consideration of which is