S SAROJAMMA Vs. RAM CHIT FUND LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is preferred by Judgment Debtor No.4 whose application to set aside the sale under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC was dismissed by the executing Court.

(2.) THE said application E.A.No.498 of 2002 was moved to set aside the sale held on 17.06.2002 by impleading the decree holder alone as a party to the application. Undoubtedly, the auction purchaser who has purchased the property and who deposited the sale consideration was not impleaded to E.A.No.498 of 2002. The executing Court has rightly noticed the same as a fundamental defect amounting to non-joinder of necessary party and the same is taken as one of the reasons for rejection of E.A.No.498 of 2002.

(3.) SO far as merits of the C.M.A. are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sale is vitiated on more than one ground and according to him, the sale price fetched at the auction namely Rs.2,45,000/- is far below the official market value of the property, which is shown as Rs.10,00,000/- as per Ex.A7-Valuation Certificate itself. The second ground raised is that the E.P. schedule property consists of seven different door numbers and the sale of all the seven door numbers was not necessary keeping in view that the decretal amount was about Rs.2,52,533/- as on the date of E.P. The further contention raised by the learned counsel is with regard to publication of the sale notice, which according to him is in an obscure newspaper which has hardly any circulation. All the said grounds were sought to be supported by placing reliance upon decisions of this Court in 1) J.MallaReddy v. Smt.I.Shantamma (2009(5) ALT 493 (DB), 2) ChirravuriVeerabhadra Rao v. State Bank of India (2010(1) ALT 770)and 3) VemulaVenkateswarlu v. Vakati Prabhakara Reddy (2011(1) ALT 156).