PRASEETHAN Vs. SIVARAMAKRISHNAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is the auction purchaser in a court sale held on 21st December 1992 in execution of a decree obtained by the 2nd Respondent against the first Respondent. The property belonging to first Respondent measuring an extent of 4.91 acres was sold for an amount of Rs. 1,50,010. First Respondent filed application to set aside the sale as E.A. 77 of 1993 alleging that there was material irregularity and fraud in publishing and conducting the sale. First Respondent also alleged that the property was sold for highly inadequate price of Rs. 1,50,010 and the annual income from the property itself would exceeded Rs. 60,000 and, therefore, the first Respondent was seriously prejudiced by the court sale. Appellant herein opposed the application. Seven witnesses were examined and Exts. C -1 to C -5 were marked and learned Sub Judge held that the proclamation of sale was not properly done and the fact that only one person had participated in the sale and the low value of the property proved that there was irregularity in conducting the sale. Appellant challenges the findings of the learned Sub Judge.

(2.) WE heard Appellant's counsel and counsel for the Respondents. First Respondent's counsel contended that there was no valid proclamation of sale and that the first Respondent had not received notice under Rule 66. This contention is not correct. First Respondent had received notice and the order shown in the proceedings and the entire records produced before us clearly show that the first Respondent -judgment debtor after having received notice under Rule 66 did not file any tenable objection. In the series of applications filed by him he prayed that the sale may be adjourned without making fresh proclamation and this indicated that he had no objection whatsoever regarding the proclamation of sale.

(3.) ANOTHER reason that weighed with the learned Sub Judge in setting aside the sale of the property is that as per the valuation of the Commissioner the property valued at Rs. 5,55,910 and as it was sold for Rs. 1,50,000 there was irregularity. The learned Judge found that the judgment debtor had sufficient opportunity to raise objection regarding the value of the property but was of the view that lesser value was obtained for the property due to the absence of effective proclamation. But, this also is not supported by any evidence. Admittedly, the property is in a remote place and there were no bidders and on two occasions the upset price had to be reduced. Therefore, it cannot be said that the sale for a lesser amount and that was due to the absence of proper proclamation.