The provisions of Order 21 Rule 66 (1) and (2) CPC are mandatory and want of compliance with the said provisions would render the sale illegal.

K. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the Judgment of the learned second additional District Judge. Guntur reversing the order and decree of the learned District Munsif, Sattenapalli, and setting aside the court auction sale and confirmation of the sale in execution of a decree. The relevant facts are as follows:the respondents 1 and 2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 4000/by mortgaging the suit house in favour of Aravapally venkata Seshadri. The mortgagee filed a suit OS No 437/1957 on the file of the District Munsiff s Court, Sattenapalli, on the foot of mortgage and obtained a preliminary decree on 12-2-1958 and final decree on 4-9-1958. The respondents 3 to 6 are legal representatives of the decree-holder. In e. P. 1342/1958 the hypotheca was brought to sale. The sale proclamation was drawn up on 21-2-1959. The upset price was fixed at Rs 3500/the sale was to be held on 8-6-1959. At that state the respondents I and 2 (Judgment-debtor) filed an application E. A. No 907/1959 (Ex. B-1) making party payment of Rs. 575/ and waiving fresh publication of the proclamation and praying for adjournment of the sale and for four months tine for payment of the balance. Accordingly the sale was adjourned to 29-6-59 on which date the judgment-debtors filed another application E. A. No. 1016/ 1959 making part payment of Rs. 600/and waiving fresh publication and requesting three months time for payment of the balance. The sale was adjourned to 13-7-1959 on which date another application E. A. No 1124/ 1959 was filed making part payment of Rs 385/and waiving fresh publication of the proclamation and requesting for the adjournment of the sale. The sale was then adjourned to 23-7-1959. On that day while the auction sale was proceeding, the judgment-debtors filed an application E. A. No. 1185/1959, making part payment ef Rs. 200/and praying for 15 days time for payment of the balance and for adjournment of the sale and waiving fresh publication of proclamation. The sale was ordered to continue and on 25-7-1959 the sale was held and the 3rd respondent the son of the decree holder became the highest bidder for Rs. 4000/subsequently the sale was confirmed.

( 2 ) THE appellant herein purchased the suit house under the sale deed ex B-12 dt 12-4-61, from the 3rd respondent. The Judgment - debtors filed an application E. A. No. 19/1961, under section47 and Order 21 Rule 90 c. P. C. for setting aside the sale on the ground among others, that the judgment - debtors had no notice of the settlement of the proclamation that there was violation of the mandatory provisions of Order 21 Rule 66 (2) (e) of the Code of Civil Procedure in not mentioning the valuation of the judgment - debtors in the sale proclamation and that as a result of collusion between the 2nd respondent and the bidders the sale was knocked down for a very low price. This application was opposed by the decree holders and the purchasers. The trial court, negatived all the contentions and dismissed the petition. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge, allowed the appeal and set aside the sale and its confirmation. Before the learned district Judge, mainly three points were urged that there was no notice of the settlement of the proclamation; that there was violation of the mandatory provisions of order 21 Rule 66 (2) (e) C. P. C; that the valuation of the property as given in the proclamation was low and that the price fetched at the court auction sale, was grossly inadequate. The learned Judge upheld the aforesaid contentions. In this appeal, Sri P. Sitarama Raju, learned counsel for the appellantreiterated the same contentions. It is not disputed that the sale proclamation did not contain the Judgment - debtor s valuation. Further, the finding of the lower court, that the upset price given in the proclamation was low, that the value of the suit house could be reasonably taken to be between Rs. 8000/and Rs. 10,000/and that the price of Rs. 4000/ fetched at the court auct

Click Here to Read the rest of this document