R. JAGADISH NAIK Vs. GOWRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sagar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Satish M. Doddamani for petitioner. Perused the records.

(2.) Petitioner is the auction purchaser of a sale conducted in FDP No. 19 of 2007 where under the immovable property which was subject -matter of suit O.S. No. 48 of 2002 had been brought to sale since it was opined that it was not feasible to divide the properties and allot shares among the sharers. Suit schedule property was subjected to public auction by consent of parties and Court sale was conducted on 30 -7 -2012. Writ petitioner herein was the successful bidder namely he had offered highest bid which was for Rs.66,00,000/ -. Said Court auction is said to have concluded at 5.05 p.m. and as such successful bidder was directed to deposit 25% of the sale amount on the next day i.e., on 31 -7 -2012 as recorded in the order sheet. Undisputedly the order sheet dated 30 -7 -2012 also contains the signatures of legal representatives of deceased defendant -Smt. Gowramma. It is not in dispute that successful bidder i.e., writ petitioner deposited the following amounts on the dates indicated correspondingly:

(3.) Since 25% of successful bid was not deposited as contemplated under Order 21, Rule 84 an application came to be filed by legal representatives of 1st petitioner in FDP No. 19 of 2007 to hold that sale held on 30 -7 -2012 is a nullity and contrary to Order 21, Rules 84,85 and 86 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. After considering the objections filed by successful bidder as per Annexure -F Trial Court adjudicated the said application and by impugned order dated 6 -2 -2014 - Annexure -G set aside the sale held on 30 -7 -2012 on the ground that it is contrary to Order 21, Rules 84,85 and 86 and declare the sale conducted as null and void. On account of auction purchaser having deposited the amount and other sharers including the applicants having sought for payment of the amount so deposited by auction purchaser, Court below had ordered payment of amount in favour of sharers to the extent of their share to which they were entitled as per judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 48 of 2002. It is this order winch i impugned in the present writ petition.