K J PRAKASH KUMAR Vs. RASHEEDA YASIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the CIVIL Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree inC.M.A.No.17 of 2005 in confirming the decretal order dated in E.A.No,475 of 2003 in E.P.No.199 of 1998 in O.S.No,9158 of 1995 on the file of III Additional Judge, City CIVIL Court, Chennai.The first petitioner in E.A.No,475 of 2003 is one Komala Ammal, wife of Jeganathan. Her son is K.J. Prakashkumar. Both of them were defendants in the original Suit. Jaganathan is no more. Pending enquiry in the execution petition, she died. 2nd and 3rd petitioners are her daughters. Wherever the words "first petitioner" occur, it would refer to Komala Ammal.

(2.) THE following are the averments found in E.A.No,475 of 2003 filed by these petitions:-2. (i) THE first respondent obtained an exparte decree in O.S.No,9158 of 1995 for recovery of money against the husband of the first petitioner and these petitioners. Since the decree holder agreed to deduct not only payments made but also agreed to give interest on the amounts paid, the defendants did not conduct the suit. However, far from expectation, the decree holder/first respondent filed E.P.No.199 of 1998 for sale of the property viz., Door No,90, Ashtabujam Road, Choolai, Chennai-112, which even according to the Government market value is worth more than Rs.50,00,000/- . Unfortunately, the second petitioner was admitted to Stanley Hospital, Chennai and the first petitioner has no male member to help her in the execution process and it seems that in E.A.No,2017 of 2002 without notice to them, the upset price was reduced and on that basis the property for sale proclaimed was not sold on the spot, but in the Court premises. It is understood that the sale was knocked down in favour of the nominee of decree holder for a very low price of Rs.11,00,000/- on 12.09.2002.2.(ii) Originally the upset price shown by the petitioners was not fixed. THE reduction of upset price by order dated 11.7.2002 without notice to these petitioners is illegal. Sale proceedings of an immovable property should be held only at the spot particularly in the Court premises which is not legally sustainable. THEre is also irregularity and illegality in the conduct of the sale and on that account also the sale is liable to be set aside. THE entire proceedings of sale are totally against Order 21 Rule 66 of C.P.C. Hence, the sale dated 12.09.2002 in E.P.No.199 of 1998 has to be set aside.

(3.) (ii) But it is the allegation levelled by the these petitioners that no notice was served on them during relevant stages in the execution proceedings, that the property is worth more than Rs.50 lakhs on the date of sale and it has been sold for a meagre sum of Rs.11,03,000/- and the sale is not valid on account of material irregularity.