CHILAMKURTI BALA SUBRAHMANYAM versus SAMANTHAPUDI VIJAYA LAKSHMI & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 826 · Decided: 02-05-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

r 
A 
B 
(2017] 3 S.C.R. 826 
CHILAMKURTI BALA SUBRAHMANYAM 
v. 
SAMANTHAPUDI VIJAYA LAKSHMI & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5988 of 2007) 
I 
MAY02,2017 
[R. K. AGRAWALAND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.XX!, r.90 - Scope of -
Execution application flied by decree-holder - Attachment of suit 
C schedule property - Proclamation of sale on 5.10.1999 - On 
4.11.1999, sale warrant issued to bail if! to give 15 days notice by 
affixing the same in court house making due proclamation of suit 
schedule property - Publication in newspaper regarding sale on 
17.11.1999 - Participation of 7 bidders -Appellant highest bidder -
Dissatisfied, judgment debtor filed application u/Or.XXI, r. 90 
D seeking setting aside of sale which was dismissed - High Court 
allowed the appeal of judgmen~ debtor and set aside the order of 
executing court holding that no clear 15 days notice of sale was 
"given and, therefore, sale held was irregular and if judgment debtor 
deposits a sum of Rs. 715000 being the price fetched at public 
E auctioi1, the sale held would not be given effect to - On appeal, 
held: No case was made out by the judgment debtor for setting 
aside of the sale of the property in question on the ground of material 
irregularity or fraud in publishing or in conducting the sale so as 
to enable the Court to invoke its powers u/Or.XXI. r.90(2) - Proper 
publicity was given for auction sale in papers as also by beat of 
F 
drums pursuant to .which 7 bidders participated in auction sale -
Moreover, a clear 15 days notice was given for auction sale from 
the date, of issuance of order for proclamation of sale - The order 
of executing court is restored. 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
( 
HELD: 1. Respondent No. 1, in her application for setting 
aside the sale, had mainly raised four objections. Firstly, clear 15 
days' notice was not given for sale of the properties as required 
under the Rules. Secondly, the valuation of the property was not 
properly mentioned in the concerned documents so as to enable 
826 
CHILAMKURTI BALA SUBRAHMANYAM v. SAMANTHAPUDI VIJAYA 
827 
LAKSHMI 
the parties to know its proper valuation prevailing on the date of A 
sale .. Thirdly, the market value of the property on the date of 
auction was more than the price actually fetched in the auction, 
and fourthly, no proper publication including beating of drum was 
made before the date of auction due to which there was less 
participation of the bidders in the auction sale. The executing B 
Court dealt with all the four objections with reference to the record 
of the proceedings and found as a fact that none of the objections 
had any merit. The executing Court was justified in overruling 
the objections. [Paras 16-18)[833-E-G, H; 834-A] 
2. The proper publicity was given for auction sale in papers C 
so also by beat of drums pursuant to which as many as seven 
bidders including the appellant participated in the auction sale. 
Had there been no publicity, it would not have been possible for 
seven persons to participate in the auction proceedings. Secondly, 
the details of the valuation of the property were duly mentioned, 
namely, decree holder's valuation at Rs.2, 75,000/- likewise, D 
Amin's valuation at Rs.4 lacs whereas the property was sold in 
auction for Rs.7,50,000/-. In this view of the matter, it could not 
be said that the bidders did not know the valuation or/and that it 
was not mentioned in the auction papers. Thirdly, judgment debtor 
did not adduce any evidence nor brought any bidder to purchase 
the property for a higher price than the purchase bid 
E 
(Rs.7,50,000/-) except to say in the application that value of the 
property was between Rs.12 lakhs to Rs.14 lakhs. This objection 
has no substance for want of any evidence. Fourthly, there was 
adequate publicity given with the aid of beat of drums in the locality. 
It was proved with the record of the executing Court. Lastly, a 
F 
clear 15 days' notice was given for auction sale fixed for 17.11.1999 
when counted from 05.10.1999. In other words, 15 days have to 
be counted from 05.10.1999 because it is on this date the order 
. was issued as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 64 for 
proclamation of sale fixing the date of sale as 17.11.1999. The 
executing Court, therefore, substantially and in letter and spirit G 
followed the procedure prescribed under Order XXI Rules 64 
and 66 of the Code while conducting the sale of the property in 
question. [Par

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.