Skip to content


Mrs. Kamalam Paul Vs. G.H. Rama Rao - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1969)1MLJ344
AppellantMrs. Kamalam Paul
RespondentG.H. Rama Rao
Cases ReferredIn Thiruvengadaswamy Iyengar v. Govindaswamy Udayar
Excerpt:
- .....of the property as mentioned by the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor is mentioned in the sale proclamation and that the court is under no obligation to fix its own value, it is stated at page 662 as follows:having regard to the fact that in this case the commissioner's calculation has also been set out in the proclamation, the criticism based on the ground of possible confusion is not open. on the reason of the thing also, we are unable to see why it should be necessary for the court to fix the valuation more especially when the reserve price is also generally, fixed by the court, and the price fetched at a sale often depends not on what may be called the intrinsic value of the property but on the demand for the property at the time of the sale.4. thus the necessity for the.....
Judgment:

A. Alagiriswami, J.

1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in E.P. No. 257 of 1967 in O.S. No. 219 of 1956. In settling the terms of the proclamation of sale of the hypotheca, the lower Court made the following order.:

Amin's value Rs. 20,000; Decree-holder's value Rs. 17,000; Judgment-debtor's value Rs. 50,000. Encumbrance nil. Upset price Rs. 20,000.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the fixation of the upset price at Rs. 20,000 by the lower Court is purely arbitrary and not guided by any exercise of judicial discretion and that the Court should have fixed the upset price at Rs. 50,000.

3. I see no question of jurisdiction nor any mistake of law which vitiates the order of the lower Court. Order 21, Rule 66 (2) (e) of the Code of Civil Procedure says that the terms of the proclamation shall specify the value of the property as stated (i) by the decree-holder and (ii) by the judgment-debtor. That has been done in this case and thus the rule in question has been complied with. The only thing about which something may have to be said is the fixing of the upset price. There is no doubt that no auction can be held without an upset price being fixed. Otherwise, it will only become a Dutch auction. In Thiruvengadaswamy Iyengar v. Govindaswamy Udayar : AIR1928Mad503 , which is usually relied on as an authority for the proposition that it is enough if the valuation of the property as mentioned by the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor is mentioned in the sale proclamation and that the Court is under no obligation to fix its own value, it is stated at page 662 as follows:

Having regard to the fact that in this case the Commissioner's calculation has also been set out in the proclamation, the criticism based on the ground of possible confusion is not open. On the reason of the thing also, we are unable to see why it should be necessary for the Court to fix the valuation more especially when the reserve price is also generally, fixed by the Court, and the price fetched at a sale often depends not on what may be called the intrinsic value of the property but on the demand for the property at the time of the sale.

4. Thus the necessity for the reserve price which is called the upset price has been recognised by the Bench which decided that case. Without an upset price being fixed it is not possible to hold an auction at all. Otherwise only the judgment-debtor will suffer. In fixing the upset price, the Court has necessarily got to take into consideration various factors and it is not necessary that the Court should give elaborate reasons for fixing the upset price. After all, upset price only represents the price below which the Court is not prepared to accept offers for the property. Even though the upset price may be fixed at Rs. 20,000 there is no objection to any purchaser buying the property for Rs. 50,000 which is the value given by the judgment-debtor or for even more.

5. There are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and it is dismissed.


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