SIDDAVEERAPPA AND Vs. JALAL KHAN AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the order in Misc. Appeal No. 27/50-51 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Mysore, setting aside the order of the learned Munsiff Nanjangud, in Execution Case No. 1320/46-47 and confirming a sale held in that execution case.

(2.) The property concerned was brought to sale on 19-5-48- The decree-holder had applied for permission to bid and permission had been given for purchasing the property for a sum not less than Rs. 700/-. A stranger purchaser however purchased the property for Rs. 450/-. The Process Nazir who held the sale did not accept the bid and reserved the right of accepting the bid but placed the matter before the Court. The case came up before the Court on 23-5-48. On that date, the judgment-debtor stated that he would deposit the decree amount due to the decree-holder in ease the acceptance of the bid was postponed. The case was thereafter brought up on a subsequent date. The judgment-debtor had not paid the money as promised. The bid was accepted and the sale was also confirmed on 21-6-48. On appeal, this order was confirmed but when the matter came up before this Court in revision against that order it was pointed out that

(3.) The Courts below proceeded to consider whether the amount deposited was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of a deposit under Order 21, Rule 89. The learned Munsiff has held that the amount that has to be deposited under Order 21, Rule 89 is the decree amount due to the decree-holder and as such he has cancelled the sale and ordered satisfaction of the decree in view of his finding that what had been deposited is sufficient to cover the decree amount. The learned Additional District Judge before whom this matter came up in appeal has held that what has been deposited is the amount mentioned in the sale proclamation and not the decree amount. The learned Additional District Judge is no doubt correct in holding that what has to be deposited under Order 21, Rule 89 is the amount mentioned in the sale proclamation as mentioned in Clause (b) of that rule. The learned Munsiff relies upon the wording of that rule which is as follows: