A sale proclamation in execution proceedings must strictly comply with the Civil Rules of Practice by disclosing all existing encumbrances and accurate valuations to prevent prejudice to potential bidders in a public auction.

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.07.2022 IN EP NO.152 OF 2016 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

T.R.RAVI., J.

------------------------------------------
OP(C) NO. 1549 OF 2022
------------------------------------------

Dated this the 11th of June, 2026

JUDGMENT

This Original Petition has been filed challenging the sale proclamation on two main grounds. The first ground is that the sale proclamation does not give details of the encumbrances which have been mentioned in the encumbrance certificate. The second contention is that valuation of property has not been properly done. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Geetha.K. v. S.Varadharajan [2026 KHC Online 1861], wherein this Court has directed all executing courts to ensure strict compliance with Rule 330 of the Civil Rules of Practice before settling the sale proclamation and proceeding with the sale of the properties in execution. This Court held that disclosures regarding the encumbrances are necessary to ascertain whether any person other than the judgment debtor has any claims or right, title, interest, or encumbrance over the property. In the case on hand, the encumbrance certificate issued on 10.10.2014, copy of which has been produced as Ext.P2, shows that amounts are due to the Income Tax Department and property had been attached on 02.02.2007, 31.07.2007, 25.03.2008 and 24.03.2009. Apart from the above, there is another attachment from the District Court at the instance of the respondent Decree Holder and it is also seen that there is an attachment in IA No.2514/2008 at the instance of one Siddique Babu. The sale proclamation with the copy of the judgment produced as Ext.P6 gives the details of one attachment by the Income Tax Department for a value of Rs.10,63,216/- and the attachment by the District court, Ernakulam which is the attachment at the instance of the respondent. The details of the other attachments are not shown in the schedule to the sale proclamation. To that extent, the contention of the petitioner is justified. As far as the valuation of the property is concerned according to the petitioner, going by the fair value, the valuation should be on the basis of Rs.38,43,840/- per Are. The Court has fixed the valuation by taking Rs.35 lakhs as the value per Are. The total extent of the property involved is 4.14 Ares. Even going by the value stated by the counsel for the petitioner, the property ought to be valued at around Rs. 1.59 Crores. The value of the building is to be added which has been shown as Rs.80 lakhs in the sale proclamation. The petitioner has produced replies received under the Right to Information Act which shows that the total liability to the Income Tax Department comes to more than Rs.15 Crores. Such an objection was taken in the Execution Petition also. The Court has however brushed aside those objections stating that additional grounds are being taken.

The counsel for the respondent submitted that the sale is being delayed unnecessarily by several objections that are being preferred and the petitioner stands to gain nothing even if the sale is at the instance of the Income Tax Department, as the property will not suffice the claim amounts of the Department.

I have considered the arguments on either side. On verification of the sale proclamation, it is seen that the proclamation does not meet all the criteria and the details of all the encumbrances have not been shown. If sale takes place with such details, necessarily the buyer will be seriously prejudiced since he may quote a price even without knowing about encumbrances. Since the sale is a public auction at the instance of the Court, it is necessary that all the details are available to the bidder. This Court has time and again spoken about the necessity of giving all the details in the sale proclamation as is