Skip to content


Bibi Sailo Vs. Kanji Mal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1886)ILR8All116
AppellantBibi Sailo
RespondentKanji Mal and ors.
Excerpt:
execution of decree - sale of immoveable property--error in proclamation of sale as to incumbrance to which property was liable--civil procedure code, sections 311, 312. - - 2. we allow the appeal, set aside the sale, and direct that it be held anew, in the vent of the decree not being in the meantime otherwise satisfied according law......is an appeal by a judgment-debtor, whose masonry house has been sold at auction and bought by the decree-holder for a sum of rs. 552. material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale, with consequent depreciation in price, is alleged. we need not go into the question as to the conduct of the sale, whether it was held at the time notified or not. for we are of opinion that there was admittedly such an irregularity in publishing the sale and putting up the property to the biddings of the public as must have materially marred the fairness of the auction and affected the price. it was notified that the decree-holder held two charges on the property, aggregating about rs. 1,000; but, in fact, there was one charge only and that about rs. 800. now this fact must have been known to.....
Judgment:

Straight and Tyreell, JJ.

1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor, whose masonry house has been sold at auction and bought by the decree-holder for a sum of Rs. 552. Material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale, with consequent depreciation in price, is alleged. We need not go into the question as to the conduct of the sale, whether it was held at the time notified or not. For we are of opinion that there was admittedly such an irregularity in publishing the sale and putting up the property to the biddings of the public as must have materially marred the fairness of the auction and affected the price. It was notified that the decree-holder held two charges on the property, aggregating about Rs. 1,000; but, in fact, there was one charge only and that about Rs. 800. Now this fact must have been known to the decree-holder who became the purchaser; and it is almost a necessary consequent that, assuming the house to be worth, as the Court below thought Sections and it fetched Rs. 552 only, it would have commanded a higher price if the public had known, as the decree-holder did, that it was charged with Rs. 800 only.

2. We allow the appeal, set aside the sale, and direct that it be held anew, in the vent of the decree not being in the meantime otherwise satisfied according law.

3. The appellants will have the costs of this appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //