THE ALLIED INDUSTRIES CORPORATION THROUGH ITS PROPRIETRIX P.G. SIVAKAMI AND ANR. Vs. THE SYNDICATE BANK, THROUGH ITS AGENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are against orders of dismissal of the applications filed by the judgment -debtors under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside two Court auction sales of different portions of the hypotheca held on 3rd November, 1969 and 16th February, 1970. The hypotheca consists of eight items. Three of them, items 1, 2 and 8 Were sold on 3rd November, 1969, for the upset price fixed by Court, namely, Rs. 9,550 and the decree -holder the Syndicate Bank was itself the auction -purchaser. It may be taken at present that the Syndicate Bank obtained leave to bid. The other sale was of items 3 to 7. They were sold on 16th December, 1970 for Rs. 2,750 the upset price. The purchaser was again the decree -holder -Bank. E.A. No. 1118 of 1969 was filed on 2nd December, 1969, under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the sale held on 3rd November, 1969. E.A. No. 1117 of 1969 was filed to dispense with the security contemplated by the proviso to Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that the hypotheca constituted sufficient security. E.A. No. 401 of 1970 was filed on 31st March, 1970 under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the sale of items which had taken place on 16th February, 1970. E.A. No. 400 of 1970 Was filed to dispense with the security envisaged under the proviso to Order 21. Rule 90, the ground of the application again being that the hypotheca constituted sufficient security. In passing, it should be mentioned that items 1, 2 and 8 are punja lands of an extent 10 acres 2 cents and it is urged on behalf of the judgment -debtors that they are adjoining the site of the Aerodrome in Madurai, that they are fit for being converted into house sites and that, therefore, they are very valuable. Item 3 to 7 are single crop wet lands of an extent of 2 acres 87 cents. The main grievance of the judgment -debtors is that the properties are much more valuable than the sums for which they were sold to the decree -holder. Of course, they also allege some irregularities in the conduct of the sales.

(2.) IT is seen that in E.A. No. 1117 of 1970 the following order was passed on nth August, 1970:

(3.) IN my opinion, all the three contentions are sound so far as this case is concerned. On the first point Mr. T.R. Mani relies on an unreported judgment of Ramachandra Iyer, C.J. and Ananta -narayanan, J., the relevant portion of which has been extracted by Ismail, J. in Saradambal v. Arunachalam : AIR 1969 Mad 324. The extract runs thus: