SUSEELA DEVI Vs. VAMADEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were judgment debtors in O.S.No.167/82 on the file of Addl. Sub Court, Trivandrum. The respondent filed E.P. 292/84 to take steps to sell the property of the judgment debtors for the satisfaction of the decree. The property of the appellants were proclaimed for sale and when the property came up for sale the appellants started paying the decree amount in instalments. Out of the total amount of Rs.23000 and odd the appellants paid Rs.6500/- and ultimately the sale was posted to 1-12-88. On that day the appellants did not make any payment and the property of the appellants was sold for Rs.14,730.64 on the same day. The appellants filed E.A. 460 of 1989 to set aside the same alleging that there was material irregularity and illegality in the conduct of sale. That application was dismissed. The material portion of the order reads as follows:

(2.) The counsel for the appellants raised several contentions. It is alleged that the decree holder was allowed to bid the auction and the appellants were not aware of the permission granted to the decree holder. For participating in the auction the decree holder filed an application under R.72 of O.21 CPC and the lower court records produced in this case show that a copy of this petition was given to the appellants herein and the court granted permission to the decree holder to bid for or purchase the property. So the sale conducted by the court below is not vitiated on this ground.

(3.) The other contention raised by the appellants is that the property was worth Rs.60000 to 70000 and the sale was for Rs. 14,000 and odd and this has resulted in serious injustice to the parties. It is also contended that the court below should have granted permission to sell only a portion of the property, as that by itself would have been sufficient to discharge the liability. The appellants had also applied for a commission to assess the market value of the property. The application for commission was rejected by the court below. The court has also not considered their objection. The application to set aside the sale was dismissed without adverting to any of these points.