THIRUVENGADASAMI IYENGAR Vs. GOVINDASAMY UDAIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question is raised whether in the light of Munshi Raghunath Singh V/s. Hazari Sahu [1917] 2 Pat. L. J. 130 my direction as regards the sale was correct. I cannot see that it is incorrect within the terms of Order 21, Rule 66. A Court undertaking to give valuation which would be a real guide to a bidder even if it did not inspect the property itself, would at any rate, have to accumulate copious data and hold an elaborate inquiry. The law requires that the Court as fairly and accurately as possible shall state anything which the Court considers material for a purchaser to know. If it considers a fair and accurate report of the value given by three persons material for the purchaser and nothing more in that particular respect, the Court will not, in my opinion, have erred. If it itself mistakes the value, that is an entirely different matter, and it is that which the Privy Council, is considering in Sadatmand Khan v. Phul Kuar [1898] 20 All. 412 cf. Sivasami Naicker V/s. Ramasami Naicker [1900] 23 Mad. 568 The same view as that which I have endeavoured to set forth is held by the Calcutta Bench in Kashi Pershad Singh V/s. Jumna Pershad Sahai [1904] 31 Cal. 922.

(2.) The stay petition is not now pressed as being unnecessary and it is dismissed with costs.

(3.) Memorandum of costs will follow.