PREMARAJ PANNALAL SHOP Vs. SADABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of an application filed to set aside the auction sale of City Nos. 3114, 3115 and 115 of the town of Ahmednagar. The auction was held on 19-8-1952 in enforcement of a decree obtained in Special Suit No. 25 of 1934. The three properties were sold for Rs. 7500/- and were purchased by respondent 1. In the sale proclamation which was framed by the Court after hearing objections of the parties, an encumbrance of Rs. 40,000 was shown on C. S. No. 1155 and an encumbrance of Rs. 45,000/- was shown on C. S. Nos. 3114 and 8115. At the auction each of the properties C. S. Nos. 3114 and 3115 was sold for Rs. 3200/- and C. S. No. 115 was sold for Rs. 1100/ -. The auction purchaser who was the plaintiff in Special Suit No. 25 of 1934 purchased the right, title and Interest of judgment-debtor 2a. After the sale was completed an application was filed by the appellant, who was also defendant 1 in Suit No. 25 of 1934 for setting aside the sale on the ground that he was entitled to rateable distribution under the nature of the decree obtained by him against defendant 2a. The application was filed on 16-11-1952, and before the application could be heard and disposed of the sale was confirmed on 7-1-1953. It was urged in the Court below that once the sale was confirmed, the application for setting aside the sale could not be maintained. The learned trial Judge negatived the contention and proceeded to hear the application on the merits.

(2.) IT appears that a large number of contentions were raised by the appellant for setting aside the sale, but only four of them were pressed before the learned judge. (i) That the plaintiff had mischievously kept away the bidders at the time of the auction; (ii) that bogus encumbrances had been shown in the sale proclamation and they had adversely affected the price which the properties fetched; (iii) that the original sale proclamation was so framed that it was intended thereby to proclaim for sale the right, title and interest of both the judgment-debtors, and that thereafter the sale proclamation was amended by snowing that the tight, titie and interest of judgment-debtor 2a only was intended to be sold, but a fresh sale proclamation was not published and (iv) that the valuation of the property to be sold was not mentioned in the sale proclamation.

(3.) THE learned Judge in the Court below rejected all the contentions advanced by the appellant. He held that there was no evidence on which he could hold that the appellant had sustained substantial irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale. The learned Judge accordingly rejected the application. Against the order passed by the learned Judge the appellant has come to this Court in appeal.