MOHANA KUMAR N Vs. B L NARASIMHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both Civil Revision Petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioner in both the Civil Revision , Petitions is the auction purchaser of the suit schedule property in E.P.No. 33 of 1983.

(2.) It is necessary to trace out the relevant facts leading to the filing of the Civil Revision Petitions. One Mr. Vemula Shivaramaiah filed suit in O.S.No. 115 of 1979 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool against late Byasani Laxmaiah for recovery of money and the said suit was decreed. By the time, E.P. proceedings were initiated, Laxmaiah expired and L.Rs. of Laxmaiah were made J.Drs. in the E.P. Late Laxmaiah had two sons, one daughter and wife. Execution proceedings were initiated by the decree-holder Vemula Shivaramaiah (hereinafter called as decree-holder for the purpose of convenience) and brought the schedule mentioned properties for sale. In pursuance of sale held by the Court on 12-3-1984, the auction purchaser Mr.N. Mohan Kumar, who is the petitioner in the present two Civil Revision Petitions, was the highest bidder and it was knocked down in his favour for a sum of Rs. 12,700/- subject to the mortgage decree in O.S.No. 44 of 1979 and O.S.No. 26 of 1983. In this regard, it is to be noted that M/s. Margadarsi Chit Funds obtained mortgage decree in O.S. No. 44 of 1979 against the deceased Laxmaiah and the properties were subject matter of mortgage in the said suit. After the sale was effected, one son Bysani N. Narsimhaiah, petitioner in E.A.No. 125 of 1984 and another son Bysani Laxminarsimhaiah of late Laxmaiah, petitioner in E.A.No. 126 of 1984 filed petitions before the execution Court under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C. seeking to set aside the sale contending that the sale effected by the Court was invalid on the ground that there was no proper attachment, proclamation and publication of the sale of the property; that no sale notice was issued to the Judgment-Debtors; that the auction purchaser, namely, the petitioner herein was nominee and close relative of the decree-holder and that the participants who participated nominally in the bid are the henchmen of the decree-holder and that the proclamation and publication do not disclose the conditions of bid and value of the amin and decree-holder and Court. The reduction of upset price by the Court was illegal, in the absence of any petition and notice to the judgment-debtors. Thus, the bid was a stage-managed. The actual value of the property even subject to mortgage was more than Rs. 1,00,000/- and that the nature of liability is not properly disclosed and therefore the sale amount fetched was ridiculously low. Further, the sale of both the items in one lot was illegal. Each item ought to have been sold separately.

(3.) The first respondent decree-holder opposed the application. It was stated that the petition was not maintainable and the sale was properly held duly following the procedure as laid down by law. It was also stated that the notices were served on the J.Drs. Two J.Drs. were set ex parte on 21-3-1983 and another J.Dr. was set ex parte on 18-11-1983. Only one J.Dr. (Bysani Laxminarsimhaiah), who is also petitioner in E.A.No. 126 of 1984 filed objections and they were overruled and he was also set ex parte on 28-11-1983. The sale was held subject to decree in O.S.No. 44 of 1979 only. He also denied that a collusive sale was held and that it fetched low price. It is also stated that since both the items were subject matter in the mortgage suit in O.S.No. 44 of 1979 there was auction jointly and that there were no irregularities as alleged by the petitioner. Similar averments in the petition and the counter of the respondents were made in E.A.No. 26 of 1984 except the petition having been filed by another son of Laxmaiah. A common enquiry was held in both the applications.