SATYANARAYANA SONI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P. No. 495 of 1985 The petitioners-purchasers are respondents Nos. 7 to 9 and 11 to 17 in E.A. No. 6/84 which is renumbered from original E.A. No. 68/81 in E.P. No. 9/84 from original E.A. No. 21/80 in O.S. No. 27/1973 on the file of the Court below. The 6th respondent, the State Bank of India obtained a mortgage final decree against respondents 1 to 5 on August 29, 1978 and in execution thereof, about 600 acres was sought to be sold. In the interregnum, under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holding) Act, 1975, for short, "the Act", Acs. 150-00 was declared to be the surplus land. At the instance of the decree-holder, in an appeal, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal directed the Bank to proceed in the first instance against the 150 acres of non-surplus land and if the decree debt is not realised, it was permitted to proceed against the surplus land for recovery of the residue decree debt since the decree of the Bank is exempt from the purview of the Act. Pursuant thereto, on June 20, 1980, by an order of private sale passed under Order 21 Rule 83 C.P.C., the non-surplus lands were sold at Rs. 2,500/- per acre and the sales were confirmed subsequently. A sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was realised. For residue sum of Rupees five lakhs, the surplus lands were also sold by a private sale on July 22, 1981 at Rs. 3,600/- per acre. Subsequently, the State filed an E.A. to set aside the same which was dismissed, but on revision in C.R.P. No. 3364/81, this Court set it aside and remitted the matter for reconsideration under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C. Thereafter, the parties have placed documentary evidence and no oral evidence was adduced. The executing Court by an order dated December 19, 1984, allowed the application setting aside the sales on the findings that there was fraud played in bringing these properties to sale lor inadequate consideration. Assailing the legality thereof, the present revision has been filed.

(2.) Sri Ramachandra Reddy, senior counsel appearing for Sri Rajagopala Reddy, for the petitioners, supported by the learned counsel for the decree-holder, contended that there is no fraod played an the Court and no bidder is coming forward to purchase the property through court sale. Therefore, orders were obtained for private sale under Order 21 Rule 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure as on the date when the sales were made the price fetched would not be more than Rs. 3,600/-. There is no evidence that any fraud has been played. The documentary evidence adduced by the parties would clearly show that the price fetched is reasonable. Unless there in nexus between the inadequacy of the price fetched and fraud played in conducting the sale, the sale cannot be set aside. In support thereof, he placed strong reliance on Ramdas Jee vs. Tirupathi Devasthanam, AIR 1965 A. P. 334 Radhy Shyam vs. Shyam Bihari, AIR 1971 SC 2337 and M/s. Bhasin Film Corporation vs. M/s. Shalimar Cinema, AIR 1983 Delhi 317.

(3.) The facts of the case and the contention of the learned counsel claim consideration whether the order of the Court below is vitiated by material irregularity or excess of jurisdiction in recording the finding that the sales are Vitiated by fraud.