(1.) In this petition, preferred against the order of the Sub-Judge of Tiruchirapalli passed under Rule 66 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code, the chief point argued is that the lower Court acted with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction in not fixing a market value for the property that is sought to be sold by the proclamation which was settled in accordance with the above provision of law. The learned Subordinate Judge after appointing a Commissioner to inspect the property and submit a report, regarding the market value of it, did not give a finding of his own about the matter, but directed that the proclamation should contain the statement, that the decree-holder values the first item, about whose price alone there is now any controversy, at Rs. 5,000, defendant 2 one of the judgment-debtors values it at Rs. 40,000, defendant 3 to defendant 5 at Rs. 1,00,000 and that the commissioner estimates the market value at Rs. 39,000. Other relevant facts are also directed to be inserted in the proclamation for sale.
(2.) Defendant 3 to defendant 5 now question the propriety of the order of the lower Court on the ground that under Order 21, Rule 66(2)(f) the value of the property according to the decision of the Court is a thing which the Court should consider as material for a purchaser to know in order to judge the nature and value of the property intended to be sold.
(3.) Mr. S. Ramachandra Aiyar for the petitioners seeks aid for this contention from the decisions of the Privy Council reported in Saadatmand Khan V/s. Phul Kuar (1898) L.R. 25 I.A. 146 : I.L.R. 20 All. 412 (P.C.) and Marudanayagam V/s. Manickavasagam (1945) 1 M.LJ. 229 : L.R. 72 I.A. 104 : I.L.R. (1945) Mad. 601 (P.C.). In the former case their Lordships laid down that the value of the property of which the sale has to be ordered is a material fact within the meaning of Section 287(e) of the Code of 1882 and that a misstatement of the same was a material irregularity in conducting and publishing the sale.