SUBAIDA SULAIMAN Vs. HAMSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second respondent in O.P. No. 5415 of 1983 has filed this appeal.

(2.) Second respondent's husband obtained a loan from the Kerala Fisheries I Corporation, and second respondent stood guarantee for the loan offering her landed property as security. The property was brought to sale invoking the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, the provisions of the Act having been made applicable to such loans by virtue of notification dated 8-11-1970 under S.71 of the Act. The said sale stood posted to 21-8-1976.. It was adjourned subsequently and ultimately to 20-12-1976 on which date the third respondent purchased the property for Rs.12,750/-. The second respondent filed an application before the appropriate officer under S.53(1) of the Act to set aside the sale. No specific order was passed thereon, but it was treated as dismissed. The sale was confirmed on 22-3-1978 under Ext.R2(d) order which states that he has already dismissed the application. The second respondent filed an application before the Hon'ble Minister, as seen from Ext.R2(b),and that was rejected under Ext.R2(d), and he thereupon filed O.P.No.2206 of 1979 in this Court which was disposed of by judgment, Ext.R2(c). This Court held that an application to the Hon'ble Minister was not a statutory application, and a revision would lie to the Board of Revenue. This Court directed the second respondent to file revision petition before the Board of Revenue, and if it was filed within one month, the Board of Revenue would treat the revision petition as having been filed in time and deal with it on merits. Second respondent filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, and the Board of Revenue by Ext. P2 order held that the price fetched at the sale was inadequate and insufficient, and on that ground set aside the sale. The writ petitioner who took assignment of the property from the auction purchaser, being aggrieved by the order of the Board of Revenue, filed O.P.No. 5415 of 1983. Several contentions were urged before the learned Single Judge, who set aside Ext.2 order on the short ground that the sale was not liable to be set aside merely on account of inadequacy of the price fetched at the sale. This judgment is now challenged.

(3.) Learned counsellor the appellant would contend that the learned Single Judge was in error in holding that mere inadequacy of the price, fetched at the sale would not be a ground to set aside the sale. Learned counsel relied on the observation of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Joseph v. Tahsildar, South Myriad, (1979-1985) K.U.C. 270. In Para.3 of the judgment, it is observed, after referring to S.52 and 53 of the Act: