RAZIA BEGAM Vs. KISHUNDEO NARAIN MAHTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the judgment debtor, four of whose properties were sold in execution of a mortgage decree. On an application to set aside the sale of all the properties on the ground of alleged irregularities and inadequacy of price, the Subordinate Judge set aside the sale of two properties, Lots Nos. 2 and 4 of the sale and refused the application and confirmed the pale of the other two, namely Lots Nos. 1 and 3 of the sale. This appeal is against the confirmation of the sale of Lots Nos. 1 and 3. It was objected in the Court below that the processes in execution had been suppressed. This point was found against the judgment-debtor and that finding is not challenged in appeal.

(2.) The objection pressed here is that too low a valuation was entered in the sale proclamation in consequence of which the proper-ties have been sold below their value causing loss to the judgment-debtor. The decree-holder had taken out execution of his decree in 1930 and the case came before this Court in Civil Revision No. 36 of 1931. In that case the valuation to be set by the Court on the properties was fixed by the agreement as follows: At that time Order 21, Rule 66, Civil P.C., required a value assessed by the Court to be entered in the sale proclamation. This rule was amended with effect from 1 January 1936. Thereafter, its requirements were that the Court should enter in the sale proclamation the valuation placed on the property by the decree-holder and by the judgment-debtor, respectively, and no other valuation. In the present execution the sale proclamation contained an entry of the value as given by the decree- holder and also mentioned the valuation arrived at in the High Court. The decree-holder's valuation of Lot No. 1 was Rs. 1200 and of Lot No. 3 Rs. 45. These figures as well as the valuation put down in the High Court in the earlier proceeding were entered in the sale proclamation.

(3.) This was done in pursuance of an order of the Court, dated 10 October 1936, in Miscellaneous Case No. 199 of 1936 and the order shows that the two valuations were entered in the sale proclamation by agreement of both parties. In my view, it is not now open to the judgment-debtor to contend that the entries regarding valuation in the sale proclamation constituted a substantial irregularity in the proceedings for sale. This I say with reference to the state of the law as it was then at the time of the sale proclamation and of the sale itself which took place on 7 April 1937. Lot No. 1 was purchased by a third party at Rs. 3000 and Lot No. 3 at Rs. 50.