RATAN LAL Vs. BANK OF BIHAR LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a judgment-debtor's appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Motihari, rejecting his application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., for setting aside a sale of the mortgaged property in execution of a mortgage decree. The mortgage was of a rice mill and a certain piece of land in Raxaul for the sum of Rs. 55,000. This mortgage was taken by the decree-holder on 11 November 1926. He obtained a mortgage decree in due course and the mortgaged properties were sold on 6 June 1932 for the total price of Rs. 9,500 only. The principal objection of the judgment-debtor was, that there was gross under-valuation of the properties in the sale proclamation and the price fetched was utterly inadequate inasmuch as the properties were actually valued at more than two lakhs of rupees. There were allegations of non-service of the notice under O.21, Rule 66, Civil P.C., and also of the sale proclamation and a further objection was taken that there was a misdescription of the property in the sale proclamation.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the value of the property was at least double the amount of the mortgage money. In other words it was valued at Rs. 1,10,000. The reason perhaps, although not expressly stated, was that the mortgagee would not advance a sum of Rs. 55,000, unless the property mortgaged was valued at least at double the amount. That might have been so if the valuation as on the date of the mortgage had to be considered. But what the Subordinate Judge had to consider was the actual value on the date of the sale which was six years later. Having regard to the economic depression of which the Subordinate Judge himself makes mention it cannot be said that the value on the date of the sale would be at least double the amount of the mortgage money.

(3.) Moreover the mortgage was amongst others of a rice mill which admittedly at the date of the sale and on the date of the sale proclamation was not in working order and the allegation of the decree-holder was that a material portion of the machinery consisting of the engine and boiler had already been removed. Having regard to these considerations, the value as fixed by the Subordinate Judge, namely the sum of Rs. 1,10,000, does not appear to be a proper valuation.