Skip to content


Arunachalathammal Vs. T. Karagasabapathi Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 2351 of 1952
Judge
Reported inAIR1955Mad720
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 21, Rule 66(2)
AppellantArunachalathammal
RespondentT. Karagasabapathi Pillai
Appellant AdvocateC.S. Rajappa, Adv. for ;C.R. Krishna Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS. Ramachandra Iyer, Adv.
Cases ReferredSrinivasan v. Andhra Bank Ltd.
Excerpt:
- .....to revise the order of the learned subordinate judge of tuticorin in execution directing on a sale proclamation the decree holder's valuation and judgment-debtor's valuation to be published and the property brought to sale, without noting any valuation by court.2. in this case the property is said to comprise a number of small houses or tenements whichthe decree-holder valued at rs. 5000 but whichthe judgment-debtor valued at rs. 60,000. therewas admittedly no valuation by an amin or anyindependent court officer. order 21, rule 66(2)(e),a new clause recently enacted and applicable tomadras, requires a sale proclamation to note thevaluation of the property by the decree-holderand the judgment-debtor. it is urged that this isall that is sufficient and that the learned subordinate.....
Judgment:

Mack, J.

1. This is a petition by a judgment debtor to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin in execution directing on a sale proclamation the decree holder's valuation and judgment-debtor's valuation to be published and the property brought to sale, without noting any valuation by court.

2. In this case the property is said to comprise a number of small houses or tenements whichthe decree-holder valued at Rs. 5000 but whichthe judgment-debtor valued at Rs. 60,000. Therewas admittedly no valuation by an amin or anyindependent Court officer. Order 21, Rule 66(2)(e),a new clause recently enacted and applicable toMadras, requires a sale proclamation to note thevaluation of the property by the decree-holderand the judgment-debtor. It is urged that this isall that is sufficient and that the learned Subordinate Judge's order is in accordance with the requirements of Order 21, Rule 66(2).

Reliance is placed on -- 'Srinivasan v. Andhra Bank Ltd.', AIR 1949 Mad 398 (A), a decision by Govinda Menon J. who took the view that the residuary Clause (f), which, was previously in existence as Section 68(2)(e), is intended to coyer matters other than market value. That clause requires a proclamation to specify as fairly and accurately as possible

'every other matter which the Court considers material for a purchaser to know in order to judge of the nature and value of the property,'

In the case Govinda Menon J. dealt with, there were extremes of valuation between the decree-holder and judgment-debtor; but the proclamation was also directed to contain a commissioner's estimate of the market value of the property. In cases such as this, where there is so wide a divergence between the decree-holder's valuation and the judgment-debtor's valuation, it appears to be desirable for the Court to have the property valued by an amin and to have such valuation inserted in the proclamation.

I would differentiate this case from AIR 1949 Mad 398 (A), on the ground that there the proclamation contained an estimate of the marketvalue by an independent valuer. In any event bothlearned advocates are agreed that this propertyshould be valued immediately by an amin, ofcourse, at the expense of the decree-holder, thathis valuation should be inserted in the proclamation and the property be brought to sale as expeditiously as possible thereafter. The order ofthe Subordinate Judge is modified accordingly. Onthis petition there will be no order as to costs.


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