Chellappa V. Selvadurai

Present: Lascelles C.J. and Wood Renton J.

CHELLAPPA v. SELVADURAI.

23-D. C. Trincomalee. 389.

Civil Procedure Code, as. 272, 282, 283, and 265-Decree-holder may bid for or purchase property only with the sanction of Court-Court may impose terms-Irregularity in conducting sale-Objection in sale must, be made within thirty days.

A decree-holder may only bid for or purchase the properly at the execution sale with the previous sanction of the Court, and subject to such terms as the Court may impose.

Sections 282 and 283 of the Civil Procedure Code require that the grounds of each irregularity on which a person desiring to set aside a sale relies should be expressly notified to the Court within the period of thirty days contemplated by the sections, and the Court has no power to set aside (whatever hardship the particular circumstances of the case may disclose) any sale on the ground of an irregularity which has not been so notified.

Where the Fiscal ignored the condition imposed by the Court. directing that no bid be accepted from the decree-holder below the appraised value, and sold the property to the decree holder at a mere fraction of the appraised value-

Held, that there was an irregularity in the conducting of the salt-within the meaning of section 282.

Held, further, that as the sale was not impeached on the ground of this irregularity within the period prescribed by section 282, the objection came too late.

Section 265 expressly empowers the Fiscal, before accepting any bid at a sale in execution, to satisfy himself as to the bona fides of the bidder and his ability to pay down the amount of the deposit required.

A person seeking to set aside a Fiscal's sale on the ground of material irregularity must lead direct evidence to prove that the sale of the property at an under-value was due to the irregularity; the mere allegation of inadequacy of price, without proof that it was the effect of the irregularity on the ground on which the sale is impeached, is not sufficient evidence of substantial damage caused by such irregularity.

IN this case there were two appeals. The appellant moved, under section 282 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the sale of a land belonging to him in execution of the respondent's writ. In the petition by which, in conformity with the provisions of section 282 of the Code, that application was brought before the Court, the only ground of irregularity alleged was that there had been no publication of the sale in a certain village; that several intended purchasers had had no notice of it; and that in

consequence of this there were no bidders, and the sale was concluded on the solitary bid of the respondent, the appellant's judgment-creditor for Rs. 100.

The District Judge refused to set aside the sale. The judgment-debtor appealed. On November 30, 1911, the Supreme Court (Wood Renton and Grenier JJ.) affirmed the judgment of the lower Court by the following judgment, but without prejudice to the right, if any, of the appellant to object to the confirmation of the sale on the ground that the decree-holder had bought the property, in contravention of the order of Court, for a sum below the appraised value.

Wood Renton J.-His Lordship set out the facts, and continued: - The appraised value of the land is Rs. 2,510, and there is, I think, every reason to regard the present case as one of great hardship to the appellant. At the inquiry into the appellant's petition no direct evidence was led showing that the absence of bidders and the sale of the land for Rs. 100 were due to the irregularity in regard to the publication. It follows from the case of Silva v. Dias,1 a decision of two Judges, which is binding upon us, and which itself follows the decision of the Privy Council in MacNaghten v. Pershad Singh,2 that the sale here in question cannot be set aside on the only ground of irregularity alleged in the petition. It was held in Sil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document