JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition raises a question of interpretation of the provisions of Sections 2, 3, 6 (2), 7 (b) of the Partition Act read with Rule 9 (1) of the Rules framed under that Act and the applicability or otherwise of Order 21, Rules 84 and 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure and of Rules 193 to 205 of the Civil Rules of Practice. The point is whether upon a sale among co-sharers of joint property under Section 3 of the Partition Act (hereinafter called the Act), failure to deposit the bid amount would automatically require the property to be resold by invoking Order 21, Rule 84, C. P. C. or whether the Court could extend time without reference to the provisions of Order 21, Rule 84, C. P. C.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are as follows : - The petitioner in this revision is the 2nd defendant in the suit which was originally filed in the year 1974 and was subsequently numbered as O. S. No. 20/78 on the file of Sub Court, Srikakulam. After passing of the preliminary decree the petitioner 2nd defendant filed LA. No. 378/78 for passing of a final decree. The Commissioner submitted his report on 11-6-1979 stating that inasmuch as the parties did not agree for division, the provisions of the Partition Act are to be applied and he valued the items at a particular , valuation. It appears that the auction was held on 10-11-1981 between the co-sharers in the presence of the Court in respect of items 1, 12, 13 of the plaint B.

( 3 ) AS the Court allowed a sale between the co-sharers, the case falls under Section 3 of the Partition Act and not under Section 2. As each of the co-sharer agreed to purchase a specific item, and all of them so agreed, no objection was taken nor can be raised about the procedure adopted for the sale in 1981.

( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that a memo was ; filed into Court on 10-11-1981 stating that the four items were auctioned and that item No. 1 of B schedule was ultimately purchased by the 2nd defendant-petitioner for Rs. 55,000. 00 items 12, 13 and 14 by the plaintiffs for Rs. 19,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/-respectively. The signatures of the parties were also taken in that memo. In the docket order dt. 10-11-1981 it is stated that the above items were put to auction in between the parties and that the matter is posted for drawing of lots. There was no direction either for deposit of the l/4th of the bid amount i immediately or granting time for payment of the 3/4th amount at any time subsequently. The fact remains that neither the petitioner 2nd defendant nor the plaintiffs deposited any amount either immediatedly nor subsequently. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have made several attempts to wriggle out of the auction as perhaps they felt that the petitioner 2nd defendant had gained an advantage in purchasing item No. 1 for Rs. 55,000/- only. The plaintiffs filed I. A. No. 478/81 under Section 151, C. P. C. for setting , aside the entire auction i. e. , items 1, 12, 13 and 14 on the ground that the 1st plaintiff had acted in the auction without the consent of the other plaintiffs and that the auction did not take into account the right of the 9th plaintiff, the mother, in respect of a right of residence. The affidavit in that LA. was got filed by the 2nd plaintiff. The plaintiffs also filed LA. 340/82 under Order 32, RULE 12, C. P. C. with an affidavit of the 4th plaintiff saying that at the time of auction the plaintiffs 4 to 8 were minors and that they were not property. represented by the 9th plaintiff and that the said 9th plaintiff was illiterate and her interests were adverse to the interests of the minors. It will be noticed that in neither of these | applications was any contention raised that j either there was no order for auction or that the provisions of Order 21, RULE 84, C. P. C. applied and that the non-deposit of the monies in the auction require a fresh auction. At that stage both I. As. 478/81 and 340/82 were dismissed ; by the lower Court by order dt. 20-9- The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document