LALDHARI PRASAD Vs. NILKANTH PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the decree holder against the decision of the Subordinate Judge in an application by the judgment-debtors to set aside a sale in execution of a mortgage decree. The objections taken in the Court below by the judgment- debtors were first, that as there had been a transfer of a 4 annas share of one Madho Bibi in the decree to the wives of some of the mortgagors, notice was required under Order 21, Rule 16 as the transferees had applied for execution together with the other decree-holder.

(2.) No such notice had been served; the notice required by Order 21, Rule 22 had not been served; the notice required by Rule 66 of the same order had not been served; the sale proclamations had not been served on the spot; the price obtained in the execution sale was inadequate; that certain of the judgment- debtors were dead at the time that the execution was taken out; that the heirs have not been brought on the record; and that as regards some of the judgment- debtors although they had in fact attained their majority were described in the execution proceedings as minors and had been proceeded against as such.

(3.) The Judge in the Court below decided the point as regards Order 21, Rule 16 in favour of the objectors and the second point under Order 21, Rule 22 against them. He also decided that notice under Order 21, Rule 66 had been served, that the proclamations had been served on the spot; that so far as the price obtained at the sale was concerned, the price of certain properties was inadequate. He also decided that certain judgment-debtors were dead and that their heirs had not been brought on the record, and that although certain persons who were majors were described and proceeded against as minors, yet this constituted merely an irregularity. But on the other points in which the objectors succeeded the learned Judge set aside the sale.