LexTAKASEELA PEDDA SUBBA REDDY versus PUJARI PADMAVATHAMMA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
692
TAKASEELA PEDDA SUBBA REDDY
v.
PUJARI PADMAVATHAMMA & ORS.
April 28, 1977
[P. N. BHAGWAT! AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, (Act V ·of 1908), 1908-0rdcr X){J, Rule 64---
Scope of-.Meaning of the words "as 1nny seieni necessary to satisfy the decree".
Order XXI Rule 64 of the C.P.C. lays down that "nny court executing a
decree may order that any property attached by it and liable to sale or such
portion thercot as 1nay sei~1n 11ecessary to satisfy the decree, shall be sold and
that the proceeds of such sale, or a sufficient portion thereof shall be paid to the
party entitled under the decree to receiYe the same."'
The 5th respondent/decree-holder, S.P.R. Reddy obtained two decrees against
the Judgment-debtor Pujari Subbarayudu in two suits viz.; 0.S. 15 of 1949 and
O.S. 19 of 1953. He filed execution proceeding, No. 24 of 1953 in the trial
Court for selling the .properties belonging to the judgment-debtor in Devanoor
and Gudipadu vilJages in order to satisfy the decree in 0.S. 15 of 1949.
He
also applied for permission to bid- at the auction sale. In the auction sale held
on March 2, 1955, the 5th respondent purchased the lands situated in village
Devanoor for a sun1 of Rs. 16,880/-. Despite the fact that the- sale proceeds of
the land'i in village Devanoor alone was sufficient to satisfy the decretal amount
mentioned in the warrant of sale and the proclamation of sale viz.; Rs. 16,715.50,
the Court proceeded to sell the properties of the judgment-debtor in village
Gudipadu which fetched Rs . .12,500/- and \Vhich were purchased by the appel-
lant auction-purchaser. The jUdgment-debtor filed an application on March 31,.
1955 to set aside the sale contending, inter alia, that once the sale of the pro-
perties in village Devanoor ~'as sufficient to satisfy the amount mentioned in the
sale proclamation, the Court should have stopped the sale as required by the
mandatory provisions of Order XX! Rule 64 of the C.P.C. The Trial Court
rejected the said application; whereupon the decree-holder on April 20,
1955
obtained an order from the court for rateable distribution of the sale proceeds.
fn appeal the High Cou1t accepted the plea of the judgment-debtor regarding
non-complianCc with the provisions of 0.XXI Rule 64 C.P.C. and set aside the
sale ~'ith respect to the properties situated in village Gudipadu.
Dismissing the appeal by certificate the .court,
HELD : ( 1) The High Court rightly held that as the sale of the properties
in village Devanoor fetched an aniount mentioned in the sale warrant, the Exe-
cuting Court was not ju~tified in proceeding with the sale of the propert_ies
in
village Gudipadu and should have stoppe~ the sale. [694 F]
(2) The logical corollary which flows from O.XXI Rule 64 of the Co<le is
that where the amount specified in the proclamation of sale for the recovery of
which the sale was ordered is realised by sale of certain items, the saJe, of fur-
ther items should be stopped. [695 C-Dl
(3) Under Order XXI Rule 64, the Executing Court derives jurisdiction to
se11 properties attached only to the point at which the decree is fully satisfied. The·
words "necessary to satisfy the decree" clearly indicate that no sale can be
mentioned in the sale proclamation and is sufficient to satisfy the decree, no
alloVi'ed beyond the decretal amount mentioned in the sale proclamation. In
other words, \Vhere the- sale fetches a price equal to or higher than the amount
furth~!··sale should be held and the court should stop at that stage. [695 E~F]
(4) In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there being nothing
to show that the decree-holder had approached the court for including the second·
tlccretal amount obtained in 0.S. 19 of 19~3 in the proclan1ation of sak, the
T. P. SUBBA REDDY v. p PADMAVATIJAMMA (Fazal Ali, f)
693
~x~uting Court was not justified in selling the properties situated
in village
Gud1padu.
The fact that tht! judgment-debtor did not raise an objection on this
ground b.!fore the Executing Court is not sufficient to put him out of court
becaus~ this was a matter which went to the very root of the jurisdiction of the
E'.xecutmg Court to sell the properties and the non-compliance with the provi-
sions ot O.XXI, Rule 64 of the Code was sufficient to vitiate the same so far as
the properties situated in village Gudapadu were concerned. [695 G-H, 696 Al
(5) The Court remitted the ffiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.