Skip to content


Kuppammal and ors. Vs. Devendra Iyer and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1957)2MLJ134
AppellantKuppammal and ors.
RespondentDevendra Iyer and anr.
Cases ReferredArunachalathammal v. Kanagasabapathi Pillai
Excerpt:
- .....this is a revision filed against an order of the learned subordinate judge, madurai, who fixed the upset price of the properties to be sold at both rs. 2,500 given by the defendants and also at rs. 5,000 as given by the plaintiff. this practice of fixing both the figures as the upset price has been condemned by my lord the chief justice in c.r.p. no. 1382 of 1956. this is what the learned chief justice observed:what the learned judge has done is to direct the upset price to be fixed at both the figures given by the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor respectively. this is absolutely unworkable.the present case falls directly within that decision, and so it is clear that the subordinate judge was in error in fixing both the amounts as the upset price. what he should have done, as.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ramaswami Gounder, J.

1. This is a revision filed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai, who fixed the upset price of the properties to be sold at both Rs. 2,500 given by the defendants and also at Rs. 5,000 as given by the plaintiff. This practice of fixing both the figures as the upset price has been condemned by my Lord the Chief Justice in C.R.P. No. 1382 of 1956. This is what the learned Chief Justice observed:

What the learned Judge has done is to direct the upset price to be fixed at both the figures given by the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor respectively. This is absolutely unworkable.

The present case falls directly within that decision, and so it is clear that the Subordinate Judge was in error in fixing both the amounts as the upset price. What he should have done, as required by Order 21, Rule 66(2)(e), is to have mentioned both the figures in the sale proclamation without fixing any upset price. That this is the proper procedure is also indicated by Satyanarayana Rao, J., in his Order in C.R.P. No. 784 of 1950. In this connection, it may be observed that there is nothing in Order 21, Rule 66(2)(e) enjoining on an executing Court to make any enquiry as regards the valuation of the properties to be sold and give such valuation in the proclamation of sale. If any authority for that proposition Were needed, reference may be made to the decision of Govinda Menon, J., in Srinivasan v. Andhra Bank Ltd. : (1948)2MLJ569 Another decision of Mack, J., in Arunachalathammal v. Kanagasabapathi Pillai (1955) 1 M.L.J. 285 was brought to my notice in which it is stated that the learned Judge has expressed a contrary view. Even that learned Judge only stated that where there is a wide divergence between the decree-holder's valuation and the judgment-debtor's valuation, it is desirable for the Court to have the property valued by the amin of the Court and to have such valuation inserted in the proclamation. But that certainly is not an obligatory duty cast upon the Court by the language of Order 21, Rule 66(2)(e). However, in the present case, the learned Judge was clearly in error in fixing both the amounts as the upset price.

2. So this revision is allowed, and the order of the learned Subordinate Judge set aside, with the direction that both the valuations will be mentioned in the sale proclamation as required by Order 21, Rule 66(2)(e). No costs.


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