CHANDRADAS K P Vs. A NIZAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole defendant in OS No. 157 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha is the appellant in this Appeal. The said suit, instituted by one Sajit John who was the predecessor in interest of respondents 2 to 4 herein, was one for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The agreement for sale was marked as Ext. A1 dated 15/10/1993. The said suit was contested by the appellant and as per judgment and decree dated 06/02/2001, the Court refused to grant specific performance of the contract but instead granted a decree for return of the advance amount of Rs. 30,000/- with interest due thereon. Since the appellant did not pay the amount decreed, his property was brought to sale. Initially 7" cents out of 21 cents of property valued at Rs. 60,000/- was put up for sale. As per the final sale proclamation the entire 21 cents shown as worth Rs. 60,000/- was put up for sale and was sold on 29/02/2008 for a sum of Rs. 1,01,200/- which works out to Rs. 4819 per cent. On 28/03/2008, the appellant filed EA No. 184 of 2008 under O. 21 R. 90 CPC for setting aside the sale on the ground that a low price was shown for the property, that the sale proclamation contained a mis description, since the existence of the house in which the appellant was residing was not shown in the sale proclamation, that the price initially shows was brought down to the extreme determent of the appellant resulting in sale of the properly for an unconscionably low price and that there was procedural irregularity by way of non compliance of R. 330 of Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala.

(2.) THE application was opposed by the 1st respondent, auction purchaser who inter alia, contended that the appellant / judgment debtor, who did not object to the settlement of the sale proclamation or the description of the property therein, was precluded from raising the above amount for setting aside.

(3.) THE Court below after hearing both sides as per the impugned order dated 06/04/2009 accepted the contentions of the auction purchaser and dismissed the application. Hence this appeal.