LAWS(KAR)-1999-10-41

CHALLAMANE HUCHHA GOWDA Vs. M R TIRUMALA

Decided On October 08, 1999
CHALLAMANE HUCHHA GOWDA Appellant
V/S
M.R.TIRUMALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is against the dismissal of I. A. II by the first appellate Court by allowing I. A. I and confirming the sale by the first appellate Court. The appellate Court has reversed the order of the Trial Court under which the sale held on 28. 8. 1992 was set aside.

(2.) THE facts of the case that given raise to the above C. R. P. is that one Enni Mallikarjuna, in pursuance of a final decree obtained on 9. 5. 1987 filed execution Petition No. 65/1990 on 6. 11,1990 to bring the property to recovery of money; the sale proclamation was published on 19. 7. 1992 spot sale was on 26. 8. 92 and the sale in the Court was on 28. 8. 1992, there were no bidder so far as item 1 to 4 and 6 are concerned excepting item-5 namely the land measuring 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy. No. 144/2 of Yadagigalamana village; only half of the said land was brought for sale and the first respondent herein became highest bidder for Rs 13,000/- on the date when the sale was held on the spot; on 26. 8. 1982; when the matter had come up before the Court for final on 28. 8. 1982 none came forward in bidding for more; on 28. 8. 1982, when the sale was knock down in the name of the first respondent, he deposited Rs. 4,000/-and the remaining sum of Rs. 9000/- on 10. 9. 1992 the first respondent filed I. A.-I Under - Order 21 Rule-92 CPC to confirm the sale and to make it absolute; in the meantime I. A. II was also filed by the judgment debtor under Order-21 Rule-89 to set aside the sale.

(3.) THE objection to the sale was that there was no sale proclamation was published on spot; there is illwill between himself and first respondent; sale notice is silent about portion of the land put to sale; value of the property was not mentioned in the sale proclamation; after purchaser is a lecturer and he has no right to purchase the property under the provision of Karnataka Land Reforms act; even then the Judgment debtor was ready and willing to pay the decretal amount and consequently, the sale must be set aside.