MANMATHA NATH CHAKRAVARTY Vs. SACHINDRA KUMAR CHAKRAVARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why orders passed in their favour by the Courts below, dismissing an application made by the petitioners under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C., should not be set aside. The Rule involves a point of some interest.

(2.) The parties are co-sharers. It appears that the opposite parties made a payment of revenue, a portion of! which was payable by the petitioners. Thereafter, as was to be expected, they brought a suit for re-imbursement in order to recover from the petitioners the amount of revenue which it was their duty to pay but which the opposite parties had been compelled to pay on their behalf. The suit was decreed in due course and execution was taken out against the undivided onethird share of the petitioners in the common homestead of the parties. The property put to sale appears to have been divided into four lots and the total price mentioned in the sale proclamation was Rs. 850/-. The price "fetched at the sale was Rs. 929-0-6 the purchasers being the execution-creditors themselves. Both the Courts have found that such price was very 'inadequate'.

(3.) The petitioners did not leave the sale unchallenged and made the usual application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C. The application contained the usual allegations of a wholesale character charging the opposite parties with fraud and irregularity of every possible kind. It was alleged that the relevant notices had all been suppressed in collusion with the process servers and that the sale proclamation itself had been caused to be drawn up in violation of the requirements of Order 21, Rule 66, Civil P. C. with a view to conveying to the intending bidders a misleading impression about the property offered for sale. It was also alleged that the price actually fetched at the sale was so low that it itself constituted evidence of fraud in publishing and conducting the sale.