SUBBA NAVITHAN Vs. VELUCHAMI GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed in E.A.No.560 of 1991 inE.P.No.258 of 1990 in O.S.No.697 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif, Palani. The judgment-debtor is the petitioner herein. The respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit, obtained a decree against the petitioner herein. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 22.7.1986 and a final decree was passed in I.A.No.1442 of 1988 on 16.6.1989. Thereafter, the decree-holder filed E.P.No.258 of 1990 to realise the decree amount of Rs.6,020. The property of the judgment-debtor was brought to sale on four occasions. In the sale proclamation the decree amount is shown as Rs.6,020. The value of 4 acres and 48 cents of property was shown as Rs.67,200. According to the judgment-debtor, the value of the said property would be about Rs.1,00,000. The judgment-debtor contended that since the decree amount is only Rs.6,020, the entire property worth about Rs.1,00,000 according to the judgment-debtor and Rs.67,200 according to the decree-holder should not be brought to sale. The judgment-debtor contended that a portion of the property can be brought to sale so as to satisfy the decree amount. Before the execution court, the judgment-debtor contended that the provisions of 0.21, Rules 64 and 66, C.P.C. were not properly complied with by the judgment-debtor. Accordingly, the judgment-debtor requested the execution court to stop the sale. However, the execution court pointed out that the entire property belonging to the judgment-debtor cannot be divided as requested by the judgment-debtor since the property mortgaged is a single unit. On that basis the execution court dismissed E.ANo.560 of 1991 filed under Sec.47, C.P.C.

(2.) IT is against this order, the judgment-debtor is in revision before this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein submitted that the decree amount is only Rs.6,020 and the property admeasuring 4 acres and 48 cents worth about Rs.1,00,000 need not be brought to sale to realise the paltry decree amount. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ambatti Narasayya v. M.Subba Rao, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 119. The learned counsel appearing for the decree-holder submitted that the property was brought to sale for four times earlier, but the sale was not fructified. When the property was brought to sale for the fifth time, the judgment-debtor came forward with this application so as to prevent the decree-holder from realising the decree amount. IT was further pointed out that the property mortgaged is a single indivisible unit and therefore it cannot be divided. According to the learned counsel the provisions contained in O.21, Rules 64 and 66, C.P.C. were not violated in this case. In support of this contention, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of P.L.V.Giri v. A.Subramaniam and another, (1992)2 L.W. 237.

(3.) THE fact remains that the decree-holder obtained a decree against the judgment-debtor on a mortgage executed by the judgment-debtor. THE suit property was brought to sale. According to the sale proclamation, a sum of Rs.6,020 is due to the decree-holder. THE decree-holder brought to sale a property admeasuring 4 acres and 48 cents belonging to the judgment-debtor. According to the decree-holder, the value of the said property is Rs.67,200. But according to the judgment-debtor the value of the said property would be Rs.1,00,000. THE learned counsel for the judgment-debtor contended that the entire property need not be brought to sale and a sale of a portion of the said property would satisfy the decree amount. But according to the decree-holder the entire property is a single indivisible unit and therefore it cannot be divided. Hence, according to the decree-holder there is nothing wrong in bringing the entire property to sale.