SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(AP) 1038

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : D.H.NASIR
Kamineni Santhakumari - Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India - Respondent
Decided On : 12-29-95

Mere irregularities in an execution sale do not warrant setting aside the sale unless substantial injury is caused to the judgment debtor.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 21, RULE 90 - EXECUTION SALE - SETTING ASIDE - GROUNDS - IRREGULARITIES - SUBSTANTIAL INJURY - MISDESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY - SERVICE OF NOTICE - PROCLAMATION OF SALE - WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS - INADEQUACY OF PRICE - MORTGAGED PROPERTY - IMPROVEMENTS.

Fact of the Case:

Appellant, a judgment debtor, challenged the validity of the sale of her property in execution of a decree, alleging irregularities, misdescription of property, improper service of notice, and inadequacy of price.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant failed to establish substantial injury due to the alleged irregularities. The misdescription of the property was not fatal, as the auction purchaser was aware of the existence of a house and shed on the property. The service of notice and proclamation of sale were substantially complied with, and the appellant had waived any objections by applying for postponement of the sale. The price fetched at the auction was three times the upset price, and the appellant failed to prove that it was grossly insufficient.

Issues: 1. Whether the irregularities alleged by the appellant were sufficient to set aside the execution sale? 2. Whether the misdescription of the property in the sale proclamation vitiated the sale? 3. Whether the service of notice and proclamation of sale were proper? 4. Whether the appellant waived any objections to the sale by applying for postponement? 5. Whether the price fetched at the auction was grossly insufficient?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Mere irregularities in the execution sale do not warrant setting aside the sale unless substantial injury is caused to the judgment debtor. 2. Misdescription of the property in the sale proclamation is not fatal if the auction purchaser is aware of the true nature of the property. 3. Substantial compliance with the requirements of service of notice and proclamation of sale is sufficient, and technicalities should not defeat the ends of justice. 4. A judgment debtor who applies for postponement of the sale waives any objections to the sale, including irregularities in service of notice and proclamation. 5. Inadequacy of price alone is not sufficient to set aside an execution sale unless it is caused by fraud or other irregularity resulting in substantial injury to the judgment debtor.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the validity of the execution sale.

D. H. NASIR, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises froman order passed in E. A. No. 143/91 in E. P. No. 24/90 in O. S. No. 223/84 on the file of the Subordinate judges Court at Gudivadaon22-8-1992.

( 2 ) THE appellant being the 4th Judgment debtor (J. Dr.) in E. P. No. 24/90 filed eano. 143/91 under Order 21, Rule 90 and under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the sale held in respect of the petition schedule property (Item No. 7 of the execution Petition schedule ). The 1st respondent herein is the Decree Holder (D. Hr ). The 2nd respondent is the auction purchaser. The appellant challenged before the court of the subordinate Judge,gudivada the validity of the sale of the petition schedule property in execution of the decree passed in O. S. No. 223/84 on several grounds such as; (1) she was not served with any notice in the execution proceeding at any stage; (2) She had no knowledge of the execution proceeding; (3) the property was sold for grossly inadequate sum; (4) The D. Hr. played fraud and intentionally made in correct description of the property sold and kept the court in dark about the real nature of the property and its value; (5) The fact that there was a tiled house and a pucca shed with asbestos sheet in the schedule property was not mentioned in the sale proclamation; (6) The auction purchaser in spite of being fully aware of the existence of the house and shed therein colluded with the D. Hr and knocked away the property forgrossly in sufficient value; (7) The provisions of Order21, Rule 66 of the Code of civil Procedure were not complied with and that the sale was vitiated by irregularities, illegalities and fraud. The appellant sought to set aside the sale for these reasons and made execution Application No. 143/91 for that purpose. The learned trial judge, was however, of the opinion that the appellant failed to establish that the sale was liable to be set aside and dismissed the appellant s application, which necessitated the filing of this appeal.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the D. Hr. (respondent no. 1) it was pointed out by the learned counsel that the appellant or her husband did not raise any objection regarding the existence of a tiled house and shed in the disputed property. They never attended the court and did not participate in any enquiry. Further according to him, the appellant and her husband were aware of the execution proceedings, and in fact, on 25-3-1991 the husband filed a petition to postpone the sale and at his request the sale was held on the next day that is 26-3-1991. Further according to the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, several bidders participated and there was aneck to neck competition. The husband of the appellant was also present at the time of the sale. Further according to him, item no. 1 of the Execution petition schedule property was sold for Rs. 1,20,000/- and item No. 7 sold for Rs. 70,000/ -. The sale in respect of item no. 1 had been confirmed and the delivery had already been effected. Further according to him, the disputed property being item No. 7 fetched acorrect market value. The vacant site was worth Rs. 2000/- only. It was situated in a remote village bereft of any potentialities. The titled house and the shed were treated as improvement of the mortgaged property which enured to the benefit of the mortgagee. It was according to him an inseparable improvement.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the auction purchaser being respondent No. 2 submitted that it was not true to say that the J. Dr. did not attend the court in pursuance of the sale notice. It was also not true to say that any mortgage value was furnished by them. They also did not file any petition regarding the proclamation and that the amount realised on sale was the correct value of the disputed property. Further according to him, the willful absence ofthe J. Dr at the time of settlement of terms and on the date of sale was a clear proof of constructive waiver of objections, if any, and therefore, t

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top