(RAJMATA) JAMUNA KUER Vs. SYAM BEHARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Palamau dismissing an application made under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., to sat aside a sale on the ground that irregularities committed in the service of notices and with regard to the proclamation of the sale were the cause of the properties having bean sold for an inadequate price. The judgment-debtor, who is the appellant gave evidence that the annual income from the properties is Rs. 10,000 from which it is calculated that their capital value is not less than a lakh of rupees.

(2.) The decree was for Rs. 36,000 and the properties were sold for Rs. 24,000. The objection taken here is that the notice under Order 21, Rule 66 was not properly served on the judgment debtor. The report of the process serving peon shows that he was informed by the servants of the judgment-debtor, who is a lady, that she was in another village and that they had no authority to accept service on her behalf, but that he was told by the decree-holder's servant that having made inquiries he knew that she was in the house. He therefore affixed the notice to the door.

(3.) It is urged by Sir Sultan Ahmad on behalf of the appellant that as the decree- holder's servant has not been examined there is no proof that the judgment- debtor was at home, The burden however of proving that the service was improperly made was upon the judgment debtor. The persons who, according to the peon's report, informed him that the lady was not in the house have not been examined by the judgment-debtor nor has any other evidence been given to show that she was not there.