Both the civil miscellaneous second appeals (C.M.S.As.) arise out of the common judgment dated 13.07.2000 passed by the I Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry in C.M.A.Nos.65 and 102 of 1996. Since these two second appeals are against the common judgment in the above C.M.S.As., they are disposed of by the following common judgment.

2. The appellant in both the present appeals is Akula Veerraju who is the auction purchaser in E.P.No.79 of 1986 in O.S.No.71 of 1979. K.Rukmabai, the decree-holder after obtaining the money decree for an amount of Rs.27,211/- filed the E.P. against the judgment debtor Adapa Subba Rao. Thereafter, Adapa Subba Rao died leaving behind the judgment debtors 2 to 10 as his legal representatives who are his wife and children. During his life time, Adapa Subba Rao partitioned the joint family properties under a registered partition deed. Subsequently, the sale property was sold away to discharge some other debts. However, during his life time, Adapa Subba Rao executed a gift deed dated 25.06.1985 in favour of the third judgment debtor bequeathing the petition schedule property to him. After the said gift deed, the third judgment debtor became the absolute owner of the property and has been enjoying the same in his own right exclusively. Subsequently, in the year 1986 the petition schedule property was attached by the decree holder in E.P.No.79 of 1986. Thereupon, the third judgment debtor filed the claim petition in E.A.No.39 of 1992 in the above E.P. under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC and sought to raise the attachment. The said claim petition was dismissed on 13.04.1992. Against the said order, the third judgment debtor filed A.S.No.59 of 1992 before the II Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry and obtained interim orders of stay of confirmation of sale. But, ultimately the appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, the executing Court proceeded with the sale of the petition schedule property and it was sold in Court auction in favour of Akula Veerraju for an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-. Thereafter, the judgment debtors filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 90 of CPC before the Additional Sub-Judge, at Rajahmundry in E.A.No.328 of 1993 in E.P.No.79 of 1996 in O.S.No. 71 of 1979 for setting aside the sale held on 09.03.1993. The learned Sub-Judge allowed the petition and set aside the sale held on 09.03.1993 and directed the decree holder to bring part of the petition schedule property i.e. 1/3rd or 1/4th for sale in order to satisfy the decretal amount.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the decree holder filed C.M.A.No.102 of 1996 and the court auction purchaser filed C.M.A.No. 65 of 1996 which were heard and disposed of by the I Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundtry. The learned first appellate Court dismissed both the appeals confirming the orders passed by the Additional Sub-Judge at Rajahmundry in E.A.No.328 of 1993.

4. The present second appeals are filed by Akula Veerraju, the court auction purchaser assailing the concurrent findings of the courts below.

5. The following substantial questions of law have been formulated in the second appeals:

a) Whether a judgment debtor having had notice under Order 21 Rule 66(2) of CPC, having failed to furnish his version of the valuation of the property and other grounds for not holding the sale can subsequently question the contents of the proclamation by way of an application under Order 21 Rule 90 of CPC as against the ratio in 1996(1) AWR 576, 1992(1) ALT 666 and 1992 SCW 3458?

b) Whether the judgment debtor who had prior knowledge and notice before proclamation having failed to provide his valuation of the property to be incorporated in the proclamation can be permitted to seek the remedy of setting aside the sale under Order 21 Rule 90 of CPC on the ground of inadequacy of consideration especially the difference of the judgment debtor’s valuation and the ale bid amount is very narrow?

c) Whether the result of auction pur