KRISHNA MOHAN KUNDU Vs. NRIPENDRA NATH NANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of 24-Perganas dated 22nd March 1930 by which he refused to set aside a sale held in execution of a mortgage decree. The appeal is on behalf of Krishna Mohan Kundu who is one of the several judgment-debtors in the case. It appears that the respondents who will be described as the Nandys in this proceeding obtained a mortgage decree for a sum of about Rs. 88,800 against the appellant and several other persons on 26 March 1929. The Nandys applied to execute the said decree on 15 April 1929 and in execution of the said decree purchased some of the mortgaged properties on 23 August 1929 for the sum of Rs. 69,000. On 19 September Krishna Mohan who is judgment-debtor 3 applied to set aside the Bale held on 23 August 1929. The properties were sold in four lots, i.e., lots Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 on 21 and 22 August, for Rs. 69,000 and the decree-holder purchased all the properties. The petition to set aside the sale complained of several irregularities: (1) misdescription of the properties; (2) irregularities in the advertisement in the vernacular local paper; (3) objection to the settlement of the terms of the sale proclamation under Order 21, Rule 66, Civil P.C., was not determined before the sale; (4) the hour of holding the sale on 21 August was not stated as is required by the provisions of Order 21, Rule 69, Civil P.C.; (5) and there was inadequacy of price as a result of these irregularities. All these objections were overruled by the Subordinate Judge who dismissed the application of the appellant and confirmed the sale.

(2.) Against this order confirming the sale the present appeal has bean brought and the same objections to the legality of the sale which were pressed before the lower Court have been repeated before us by Mr. Bose who has appeared for the appellant. I will deal with the objections in the order in which they were discussed before us. With regard to the irregularity about the misdescription of the properties it is said that lots Nos. 1 and 2 were amalgamated into one premises No. 6, Bhowanipur Road. This was not stated in the sale proclamation, but two premises No. 6, Bhowanipur Road and No. 14, Goaltuli Road were shown separately. In answer to this contention it is said on behalf of the respondent that the properties were described in two lots as the mortgage decree directed the sale of these two lots and that no one could have been misled as the boundaries of two lots were given in the sale proclamation. I think there is considerable force in the contention of the respondent and I do not regard this irregularity as a material one.

(3.) With regard to the second irregularity it is said that no full particulars were given in Bhowanipur Bartabaha, a local newspaper, and what was done was that a description of only one lot was given and for the other lots, Nos. 2 to 5, it was stated that the particulars of those lots would be found in the original sale proclamation. It is pointed out by the Subordinate Judge that it is usual for the Bartabaha to publish the first property in all its details and refer for the description of the rest to the sale proclamation. I do not think that this irregularity has misled any bidder or has prevented any intending bidder from bidding at the sale.