MUKUNDA RAO Vs. RAMACHANDRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against order dtd. 25/10/2021 on I.A.No. 35 filed in FDP 3/2002 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhadravathi.

(2.) I.A.No. 35 was filed by the respondents under Sec. 151 CPC read with Sec. 3 and 4 of the Partition Act for considering their applications I.A.23 and 24. Given the brief background, in the FDP proceeding the petitioners applied for auction sale of the suit property as it was not feasible to be divided into three parts. The court obtained valuation of the property through Assistant Engineer of the City Municipal Council, Bhadravathi and ordered for spot sale on 12/4/2006 and court sale on 19/4/2006. At the spot sale the highest bidder was Ramachandra Rao, the original judgment debtor, for Rs.12,05,000.00. But on 19/4/2006 the court sale was not held and it was postponed to three dates 20/4/2006, 21/4/2006 and 22/4/2006. At last one Mujeeb offered to purchase the property for Rs.12,10,000.00 and the court accepted his offer and directed him to deposit 1/4th of the bid amount immediately; but he did not. He made the deposit of 1/4th of bid amount on 31/5/2006 and the balance on 26/6/2006. The first respondent who is the legal representative of Ramachandra Rao questioned the auction sale by preferring W.P.11666/2011 before this court. The writ petition was allowed with a direction to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Partition Act . Then the respondents filed an application under sec. 3 of the Partition Act as per I.A.No. 23 seeking permission to deposit 2/3rd of Rs.12,10,000.00 and another application under Sec. 4 of the Partition Act seeking permission to exercise right of pre-emption. The petitioners also requested the court to release their 2/3rd share. The trial court by its order dtd. 25/10/2021, partly allowed I.A.35 and directed the respondents to deposit Rs.16,57,058.00 being 2/3rd share of the petitioners in the total value of suit property and permitted them to purchase the share of the petitioners. This is the order challenged here.

(3.) I heard the argument of Sri S.B.Halli, learned advocate for the petitioners, and Sri K.S.Tayur for respondent No.1 and Sri Manjunath Pattana Shetty for respondents 2 and 3.