BALLYGUGNE BUILDING SOCIETY PVT LIMITED Vs. MUNSHI FARHADALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party numbering 1 to 7 are, at the relevant time, the landlords, and Ballygunge Building Society private Ltd. ("the Society" hereafter, for short) is their tenant, on an annual jama of Rs. 15, as respects 1. 60 acres of land, corresponding to a little less than 5 bighas, within the jurisdiction of the police station of Chinsurah, the headquarters of the Dist. of Hooghly. On June 8, 1955 such landlords got a decree for rs. 43-6 annas, inclusive of costs, against the Society in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. On April 4, 1956, they applied for execution of the same, under section 162 of the Bengal Tenancy act. 8 of 1885, by attachment and sale of the holding. In doing so, they stated in the schedule of immovable property at the back of the execution petition in a tabular form and also in the draft process of combined attachment and proclamation the value of this nearly 5 bighas holding to be Rs. 45. That very day (April 4, 1956) the court admitted the application for execution, under section 163, subsection 1, of the bengal Tenancy Act, read with order 21, rule 17, of the Code of Civil procedure Code 5 of 1908, and issued combined order of attachment and proclamation in the prescribed form : just the draft supplied by the decree holders, fixing June 13, 1956, 11-30 a. m. , for sale, put up to sale, as notified, this holding, comprising a little less than 5 bighas, was bought by Nilratan Sarkar, opposite party No. 8, for Rs. 300, a price which works out the value of land in that area in mid-1956 at Rs. 3 or thereabouts a cottah. On September 19, 1956 - well within the time allowed by law : six months from Juno 13 previous, the date of the sale - the Society applied to the court under section 174, sub-section 3, of the Bengal Tenancy act, to set aside the sale on the ground, amongst others, of fraud in publishing the sale, it being specifically pleaded that the property : agricultural land producing jute and paddy, sold at Rs. 300, would be valued at Rs 10,000 and more,

(2.) THE first court dismissed the application, conceding at the same time that Rs. 300 at which the nearly 5 bigha holding was sold was low enough. it added the court sales were for low prices. On appeal, the subordinate judge held as much, remarking that "a grossly inadequate price the common feature of court sales'', and that no sale "is liable to he set aside" unless such low price "results from any act of fraud on the part of the decree-holder in publishing the sale. " necessarily, the appeal came to little.

(3.) HENCE this revisional petition by the Society under section, 115 of the civil Procedure Code.