MANNEM PEDA NARISI REDDI Vs. MADDIVENKAYYA DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of the learned Second Additional District Judge, Guntur, reversing the order and decree of the learned District Munsiff, Sattenapalli, and setting aside the Court auction sale and confirmation of the sale in execution of a decree.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows : The respondents 1 and 2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,000.00 by mortgaging the suit house in favour of the Arvapalli Venkata Seshadri. The mortgagee filed a suit O.S. No. 437/1957, on the file of the District Munsiffs Court, Sattenapalli, on the foot of mortgage and obtained a preliminary decree on 12-2-1958 and final decree on 4-9-1968. The respondents 3 to 6 are the legal representatives of the decree-holder. In E. P. 1342/1958, the hypotheca was brought to sale. The sale proclamation was drawn up on 21-2-1959. The upset price was fixed at Rs. 3,500.00. The sale was to be held on 8-6-1959. At that stage the respondents 1 and 2 (Judgment-debtors) filed an application E. A. No. 907/1959 (Ex. B-1) making part payment of Rs. 575.00 and waiving fresh publication of the proclamation and praying for adjournment of the sale and for four months time for payment of the balance. Accordingly the sale was adjourned to 29-6-1959 on which date the Judgment-debtors filed another application E. A. No. 1016/1959 making part payment of Rs. 600.00 and waiving fresh publication and requesting three months time for payment of the balance. The sale was adjourned to 13-7-1959, on which date another application E. A. No. 1124/1959 was filed making part payment of Rs. 385.00 and waiving fresh publication of the proclamation and requesting for the adjournment of the sale. The sale was then adjourned to 23-7-1959. On that day while the auction sale was proceeding, the judgment-debtors filed an application E. A. No. 1185/1959, making part payment of Rs. 200.00 and praying for 15 days time for payment of the balance and for adjournment of the sale and waiving fresh publication of proclamation. The sale was ordered to continue, and on 25-7-1959, the sale was held and the 3rd respondent the son of the decree-holder became the highest bidder for Rs. 4,000.00 subsequently the sale was confirmed.

(3.) The appellant herein purchased the suit house under the sale-deed Ex. B-12 dated 12-4-1961 from the 3rd respondent. The judgment-debtors filed an application E. A. No. 19/1961, under Section 47 and Order 21, Rule 90, C. P. C. for setting aside the sale on the ground among others, that the judgment debtors had no notice of the settlement of the proclamation, that there was violation of the mandatory provisions of Order 21, Rule 66(2)(e) of the C. P. C. in not mentioning the valuation of the judgment-debtors in the sale proclamation, and that as a result of collusion between the second respondent and the bidders the sale was knocked down for a very low price.