HIRABAI Vs. HANUMANTH KRISHNAJI BHIDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special leave petition arises against the judgment and order of the High court of Kamataka dated 17/4/1996 in MFA No. 146 of 1996. The admitted position is that the father of the respondents had a money decree in OSA No. 132 of 1989. The Civil Judge vide decree dated 12/1/1994 granted a sum of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 and costs with future interest at the rate of 6 per cent on all the defendants including the petitioner. All were jointly and severally liable. Consequently, execution came to be filed on 21/4/1994 to recover a sum of Rs. 3,33,860. Though three items of the property belonging to the petitioner were listed for execution and attached under Order 21 Rule 54 Civil Procedure Code only one of the items, namely, 8 acres and odd of agricultural land was brought to sale. In fact the property sold on 26/8/1995 was purchased by the 5th respondent for Rs. 6,40,000. 00. The petitioner filed an application under Order 21 Rule 90 Civil Procedure Code read with Section 47 challenging the sale. It is contended primarily thatproclamation of the sale under Order 21 Rule 66 Civil Procedure Code did not contain valuation of the property and, therefore, the sale conducted in furtherance thereof was not valid in law. It is also contended that the sale was vitiated by material irregularity and fraud in conducting the sale. The executing court rejected the contentions and dismissed the petition. The appeals came to be filed in the High court. Pursuant to an observation made by the learned Judge, opportunity was given to the petitioner to pay 15 per cent interest on the auction-purchase price of Rs. 6,40,000. 00 and odd. The auction-purchaser had agreed for releasing the property from sale. Though opportunity was given to the petitioner to deposit the amount the petitioner failed to avail of the opportunity nor did she deposit it. The High court by the impugned order dismissed the appeal. Thus, this special leave petition.

(2.) It is contended that the proclamation does not contain the valuation and, therefore, the sale is bad in law. The High court has pointed out that though notice was served on the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 66 Civil Procedure Code the petitioner has failed to give the valuation of their own. The court relied upon valuation given by the decree-holder and settled the terms of the sale proclamation. The property was sold for much more than the decretal amount of Rs. 3,00,000. 00 and odd; therefore, there is no illegality in the proclamation of the sale made by the executing court.

(3.) The High court also pointed out that the petitioners could not prove that there was any material irregularity or fraud in conducting the sale. The High court noted that: