RAGHUNATH RAI MAHADEVA Vs. JATAN RAM SHEO NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Purnea dated 8 May 1933. After the usual notices were served and the sale proclamation issued some properties were put up for auction on 8 May 1933 in execution of a money decree. As there were no bidders the decree holder himself bid and went upto Rupees 1,300. In the sale proclamation the price of the properties to be sold was fixed at Rs. 3,000. The learned Subordinate Judge did not allow the decree- holder to purchase the property inasmuch as he thought that Rs. 1,300 was too low a price for the properties sold. He passed orders in the following words: Property put up for sale again. No bidders, decree-holder's pleader does not like to bid more than Rs. 1,300 for all the lots although their price was fixed at Rs. 3,000 with the consent of decree-holder's pleader. He cannot therefore be allowed to purchase the properties for less than Rs. 3,000. Accordingly the case cannot proceed farther. The case is dismissed as infructuous, no costs.

(2.) In this connection I should like to point out that there is nothing before us to show how the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the price of the properties was fixed at Rupees 3,000 with the consent of the decree-holder's pleader. If the learned Subordinate Judge means that the decree-holder consented to the price being fixed by the Court there does not seem to be anything wrong with it, but if he means that the decree-holder consented that Rs. 3,000 should be fixed as the price of the properties then it is difficult to reconcile this statement with the statement which we find in Order No. 18 dated 24 February 1933.

(3.) The relevant portion of that order runs as follows: Valuation matter put up. The decree-holder has no evidence on the point. So I fix ten times the annual income shown in the verified petition for sale as the reasonable value. Besides this I am of opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge was in error when he dismissed the excution as infructuous simply because the decree-holder did not bid up to the price mentioned in the sale proclamation. In the case of Badri Sahu V/s. Peare Lal AIR 1926 Pat 140 the decree-holder valued the property at Rs. 1,600. At the sale the decree-holder bid upto Rs. 600 but the Munsif declined to allow him to purchase the property unless he bid upto Rs. 1,300. As the decree- holder was unwilling to do so the sale was not held and the execution case was dismissed.