HIRABAI versus HANUMANTH KRISHNAJI BHIDE AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 756 · Decided: 19-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
HI RAB AI 
v. 
HANUMANTH KRISHNAJI BHIDE AND ORS. 
AUGUST 19, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section 47. 
Order 21-Rules 54, 66 and 90. 
Money decree-Execution of-Proclamatio11 of sale made by the Ex-
ecuting Court-Sale of agricultural land-Purchase by 5th respondent-Clial-
lenge to sale-Rejection by Executing Court-Dismissal of appeal by High 
Court-Appeal-Dismissal of 
Sale conducted in fwtherance of execution of decree-Notice served on 
judgment debtor under Rule 66-Failure of judgment debtor to give valuation 
of property-Court relying upon valuation given by decree-holder and setting 
the ternis of proclamation-Held there was no illegality in proclamation of 
the sale made by Executing Cowt. 
Judgment debtor's challenge to sale-A/legation of material irregularity 
and fraud in sale-No evidence produced to prove allegatiorr--He/d material 
conditions required under Order 21 Rule 90 were not proved-Held applica-
tion for setting aside sale was rightly rejected by High Court. 
F 
Decree-Executio1t-Sale of property-Setting aside of-Pursuant to 
Courts observation judgment-debtor consenting to pay 15% interest and 
auction purchase price-His failure to deposit the amount:-High Court ob-
serving that judgment-Debtor intended to prolong the finalisation of 
sale-Held observation of High Court was justified-Held no inteiference was 
G wa1ranted in the case. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 15196 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.4.96 of the Karnataka High 
H 
Court in M.F.A. No. 146 of 1996. 
756 
• 
HIRABAI v. H.K. BHIDE 
757 
Ms. Rajni pd. and T.C. Sharma for the Petitioner. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This special leave petition arises against the judgment and order of 
the High Court of Karnataka dated April 17, 1996 in MFA No. 146/96. The B 
admitted position is that the father of the respondents had a money decree' 
in 0.S.A. No. 132/89. The Civil Judge vide decree dated January 12, 1994 
granted a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 and co.,ts with future interest at the rate of 
6% on all the defendants including the petitioner. All were jointly and 
severally liable. Consequently, execution came to be filed on Aprii 21, 1994 
to recover a sum of Rs. 3,33,860. Though three items of the property C 
belonging to the petitioner were listed for execution and attached under 
Order 21 Rule 54, CPC only one of items, namely 8 acres and odd of 
agricultural land was brought to sale. In fact the properly sold on August 
26, 1995 was purchased by 5th respondent for Rs. 6,40,000. The petitioner 
filed an application under Order 21 Rule 90, CPC read with Section 47 D 
challenging the sale. It is contended primarily that proclamation of the sale 
under order 21 Rule 66, CPC did not contain valuation of the property 
and, therefore, the sale conducted in furtherance thereof was not valid in 
law. It is also contended that the sale was vitiated by material irregularity 
and fraud in conducting the sale. The executing Court rejected the conten-
tions and dismissed the petition. The appeal came to be filed in the High 
E 
Court. Pursuant to an observation made by the learned Jugde, opportunity 
was given to the petitioner to pay 15% interest on the auction purchase 
price of Rs. 6,40,000 and odd. The auction purchaser had agreed for 
releasing the property from sale. Though opportunity was given to the 
petitioner to deposit the amount the petitioner failed to avail of the 
F 
opportunity nor did she deposit it. The High Court by the impugned order 
dismissed the appeal. Thus, this special leave petition. 
It is contended that the proclamation does not contain the valuation 
and, therefore, the sale is bad in law. The High Court has pointed out that G 
though notice was served on the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 66, CPC 
the petitioner has failed to give the valuation of their own. The Court relied 
upon valuation given by the decree-holder and settled the terms of the sale 
proclamation. The property was sold for much more than the decretal 
amount of Rs. 3,00,000 and odd; therefore, there is no illegality in the 
proclamation of the sale made by the executing Court. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
758 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
The High Court also pointed out that the petitioners could not prove 
that there was any material irregularity or fraud in conducting the sale. The 
High Court noted that :
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.