PUSHPA JOSE, W/O. LATE C.J. JOSE, RESIDING AT 12/149, CENTRAL LODGE BUILDING, WESTERN GATE THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, Vs. RECEIVER IN O.S. NO. 399/87, MR. ALEXANDER. J ARAKKAL, ADVOCATE, KOTTAYAM-686001 AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O .P. (C) No. 3748 of 2011 has been filed by the fourth defendant and O.P(C) No. 3506 of 2011 has been filed by the legal heirs of the seventh defendant in a suit for partition. Item No. 2 property of the plaint schedule was sold on 15 -3 -2008 and we are concerned with the sale of item No. 1 property on 22 -12 -2009. The property was admittedly in custodia legis and the Advocate Receiver conducted the sale. None of the sharers bid the property in the auction held amongst them on an earlier occasion. The upset price of item No. 1 property was initially fixed at Rs. 75,00,000/ - (Rupees seventy five lakhs only) and the property proclaimed for sale on 3 -8 -2006. None came forward to bid in the public auction held on 3 -8 -2006 as evident by the report of the Advocate Receiver. This property was again proclaimed for sale on 22 -8 -2006 and 15 -3 -2008 fixing the upset price at Rs. 75,00,000/ - (Rupees seventy five lakhs only). The court below was therefore forced to reduce the upset price to Rs. 70,00,000/ - (Rupees seventy lakhs only) by order dated 19 -3 -2009. Even then the property was not sold in public auction. Eventually the upset price was fixed at Rs. 55,00,000/ - (Rupees fifty five lakhs only) by order dated 7 -11 -2009 of the court below.

(2.) ITEM No. 1 property is 14.393 cents of land with the building thereon situated within the limits of Kottayam Town. The building is 60 years old and a portion of the property is occupied by a few tenants even. The Advocate Commissioner had initially valued the property at Rs. 45,18,000/ - (Rupees forty five lakhs eighteen thousand only) as against the valuation of the Tahsildar at Rs. 13,31,640/ - (Rupees thirteen lakhs thirty one thousand six hundred and forty only). The property was jointly bid by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in these original petitions in the auction sale held on 22 -12 -2009 for a sum of Rs. 55,05,000/ - (Rupees fifty five lakhs five thousand only). The following factors are drummed up in support of the plea to set aside the sale by the fourth defendant and the legal heirs of the seventh defendant.

(3.) IT is beyond dispute that single bidders can participate in the auction conducted by the Advocate Receiver. Singular includes plural as per the provisions of the General Clauses Act. Therefore there is nothing wrong in the joint bidders being permitted to participate in the auction. The joint bidders 2 and 3 in this case cannot also be faulted with.