DHANA LAKSHMI Vs. RUKNAINI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, in E.A. No; 90 of 1977 in E.P. No: 40 of 1975 in O.S. No. 54 of 1971, setting aside the sale held by the Court on 21-6-1976.

(2.) The necessary facts are as follows : One Yarlagadda Veerayya filed O.S. No. 54 of 1971 on the file of the Sub-Court, Bapatla against one Vedantatm Panduranga Vittal Das and obtained a decree. The said judgment-debtor died and after his death his legal representatives, viz,, his wife and three daughters, were brought on record as judgment-debtors Nos. 2 to 5. The decree-holder filed E.P. 40 of 1975 to execute the decree by sale of charged properties. A sale notice by way of publication was given to all the necessary parties. As no bidders were present on 14 - 6- 1976 the Court reduced the upset price to Rs. 30,000/- There were no bidders prepared to bid for that price, Then the sale was adjourned to 21-6-1976. Tatavarthi Lakshminarayana, the 2nd appellant herein participated in the auction on behalf of his daughter Tanguturi Dhanalakshmi, the 1st appellant herein, and became the highest bidder and deposited the bid amount of Rs, 25.700/- into the Court. Subsequently the sale was confirmed and the sale certificate dated 27-7-1976 was issued in favour of the 1st appellant. At that stage, the 3rd judgment-debtor, Vedantham Rukmini Devi. one of the daughters of the deceased judgment-debtor filed E.A. No. 90 of 1977 under Order 21 Rule 90 and Section 47 C.P.C. to set aside the court sale dated 21-6-1976. The application was contested by the appellants. Her plea was that no notices were served on her as regards the execution proceedings, that she Was also not aware of the valuation given either by the decree-holder or by the Amin and that there was no direction to her calling for her valuation at the time of settlement of the terms and as such the sale was illegal.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge accepted her plea and relying on a decision of one of us (Ramachandra Rao, J.) in M.P. Narsi Reddi vs. M. Venkayya held that Order 21 rule 66 (2) (e) C.P.C. is mandatory and as no sale notice was served upon the petitioner (3rd judgment-debtor) the sale is invalid. Against the said order the highest bidder and her daughter in whose name the sale certificate was issued, have filed this appeal.