IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Appu Alias Subramania Patter
Versus
O. Achuta Menon
Decided On : 20 November, 1925
Proclamation of Sale - Court's Duty to Settle Proclamation of Sale - Invalid Sale Due to Delegation of Power - Lack of Reserve Price in Proclamation
Fact of the Case:
The appellant raised concerns that the proclamation of sale was not settled by the Court but by the Commissioner appointed by the Court, and that no reserve price was mentioned in the proclamation of sale.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the delegation of the power to settle the proclamation of sale to the Commissioner appointed by the Court rendered the sale invalid. The Court also noted that the appellant was not allowed to bid at the auction, and the learned Judge relied upon the report of the Receiver to dismiss the appellant's application to set aside the sale.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the sale due to the delegation of power to settle the proclamation of sale, the lack of a reserve price in the proclamation, and the appellant's claim of not being allowed to bid at the auction.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that it is the duty of the Court to settle the proclamation of sale and that this power cannot be delegated to a Commissioner appointed by the Court. The Court also highlighted the importance of including a reserve price in the proclamation of sale.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the order of the District Judge and directed him to restore the appellant's application and dispose of it after taking evidence from the appellant and other parties to the suit. The costs of the appeal will abide the result and be provided for in the order passed by the District Court.
1. The first point raised in this appeal is that the proclamation of sale was not settled by the Court but that the Commissioner appointed by the Court after the preliminary decree prepared the proclamation of sale and sold the property. It is for the Court to settle the proclamation of sale and it could not delegate that power to the Commissioner appointed by it. Order 21, Rule 66, directs that when any property is ordered to be sold by public auction in execution of a decree the Court shall cause a proclamation of the intended sale to be made in the language of such Court and that such proclamation shall be drawn up after notice to the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor and shall state the time and place of sale and specify as fairly and accurately as possible the property to be sold and a number of other things. It is also contended that no reserve price was mentioned in the proclamation of sale.
2. It is also urged that the appellant was not allowed to bid at the auction. The learned Judge relying upon the report of the Receiver has dismissed the appellants application to set aside the sale, Even if the appellant was aware of the contents of the proclamation prepared by the Receiver, that would not relieve the Court of its duty of settling the proclamation. As the records stand at present we are unable to say whether the allegation of the appellant is true or false. If the proclamation was not settled by the Court the sale would be invalid. As the learned District Judge has not taken evidence in support of the allegations in the petition and as the auction purchasers are not represented here, we think the proper course could be to set aside the order of the District Judge and direct him to restore the application of the appellant to file and dispose of it after taking such evidence as may be adduced by him and other parties to the suit. Costs of this appeal will abide the result and be provided for in the order that will be passed by the District Court.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.