GAJADHAR PRASAD & ORS. versus BABU BHAKTA RATAN & ORS.

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 372 · Decided: 14-08-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW, M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

:372 
GAJADHAR PRASAD & ORS. 
v. 
BABU BHAKTA RATAN & ORS. 
A11gu.rt 14, 1973 
[K. K. MATIIEW AND M. H. BEG, JJ.J 
Code of Civil Procedure (Act S of 1898), 0.21, r.66(2)(e)-Scope of. 
In execution of a decree, six houses of the judgment debtors were sold. In 
·the sale proclama.tion, 3 houses were shown as one item, two bungalows as one . , 
item and the remaining house as another item. The valuation of each item in 
the proclamation was practically that given by the decree-holders. The Amin 
put up tor sale the 3 houses comprised in one item as separate houses and the 
total amount realised from the sale of the 3 houses was 2! times the amount in 
the sale proclamation. The two bungalows were however sold as a single unit 
and purchased by the decree holders. After the sales, the 
judgment 
debtors 
.applied for setting aside the sales on the ground of fraud and material irregu· 
laritv in conducting them, and also complained of substantial injury. The ex~u­
tion court and the High Court, in appeal, dismissed the applications. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : The 2 bungalows should be sold afresh after judicialJy considering 
and deciding the question lVhether they can be sold separately and what parti-
.culars should be inserted in the sale proclamation. [380C--D] 
(a) The object of 0.21, r.66(2)(e), C.P.C., is that essential facts having 
· .a bearing on the question of value of the property and which would assist the 
pur.cliaser in forming his cwn. opinion on the value must be stated by the Court. 
The Court should normaily state the v&Juation given by both the decree-bolder . 
.as weIJ as the judgment debtor where they have both. valued the property and 
these do not appear fantastic. It may useftilly 'State other 
material 
facts. 
such as the area of Iand7 n~ture of the rights in it, municipal assessment, actual 
rents realised, which cou1d reasonably be expected to· affect 
the 
valuation. 
'Vhat -".:ould be reasonably 3.nd usefuIJy stated succinctly in a sale proclamation 
has to be determined on the facts of each pacticular case. It is not necessary for 
the execution court to state its own estimate; nor is it necessary for th~ execu-
tion court to .order the insertion of a judi:ially pa"ised order in the sale pro-
clamation itself. but. it should pass -an order showing that it had applied its 
mind to the need for determinir:.g a11 the ess.ential particulars, which 
would 
reasonablv be looked for by a purchaser and which should be insected in the 
· saJe proefarnation. The order should show that the Court had considered' the 
objection. if any, of the decree-bolder or the judgment-debtor as the case may 
he. and the Court should not ·merely accept the ipse dixit of one side. 
[378C-HJ 
In the present case, the judgment-debtors had given their valuation and even 
applied for the appointment of a eommissioner at their expense to report on 
matters aJlectic.g the value of the property, but, the execution court had practi-
caUy accepted, as its own valuation, without indicating reasonable grounds for 
this preference, whatever the decree-holder had asserted about the ,·alue of the -
property. The area of the compound in which the l\vb bungalows were situa~ed 
\vas not mentioned in the sale proclamation, ar~. though this land v.·as 
nu:rool 
le;isehold land neither the unexpired period of lease nor rent were mentioned. 
lt was not s!ated whether the bungalows would be sold as one or two iterm of 
propecty, thoul'.!b the ju<l~r:.t debtors asserted that they \\o'Ould Rtch a mu.:h 
higher value if sold separortely. The Court rejected the judgment dcb!ors' figures 
hy merely observing that they- are exaggerated and practicaliy accepted \Yithout 
"hesitation, the figures of the decree-holders. But, the valuation was prO\"ed 
ta 
"h~ incorrect judged by the re·.sults of all the auction sale<> taken as a whole 
[3790_:4] 
Therefore, th:: execution court had not perfonned its duty fairly and reason-
;;b1y. 
I-Jenee, there \Vas a material irregularity in conducting the safe. 1379 G] 
A 
• 
B 
c 
D 
,
E 
F 
G 
' .
u 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F. 
G 
H 
GAJADll"'R PRASAD v. B. D. RATAN (Beg, J.) 
373 
Case law considered. 
[Whether decree-holders' conduct amounted to actual fraud practised on the 
Court, not decided]. [3790-EI 
(b) The result of the separate sales of the 3 houses comprised in one item 
was tha! when the sale price5 were added up, 
they 
fetched a considerably 
higher price than that put upon the propertLs when Ju

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