1 was sold on 28th January, 1974 for Rs.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 14 6 1979 of the Madras High Court in AAO No.
600 of 1974, purporting to be under s. 47 of the Code, for setting aside the sale of Lot No.
It was also alleged that the reduction of the upset price from Rs.
1 was improper and that as the appellant was an agriculturist entitled to the benefit of Act No.
After examining a large number of cases on the point, the High Court held that the application for setting aside the sale lay under rule 90 of Order XXI and number under s. 47, and therefore remitted the appeals to the executing Court for fresh companysideration.
The sale of Lot No.
2 was number sold for want of bidders.
The application was resisted by the respondent, principally on the ground that it was number maintainable under s.47.
All the three appeals by the appellant were companysidered together by the High Court and, in the circumstances, the appeal against the order setting aside the sale was taken as the main appeal.
The respondent filed an appeal, C.M.A. No.
IV of 1938 he was number liable to pay interest prior to 1st February, 1972 and companysequently the amount mentioned in the sale proclamation as due from him was incorrect.
1 was companyfirmed by the companyrt on 2nd March, 1974 and full satisfaction of the decree was recorded.
386 of 1975, in the High Court against that order.
Two other appeals were also filed in the High Court, C.M.A. Nos.
40,000/ to the respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Natesan, K. Ramkumar and Mrs. J. Ramachandran for the Appellant.
6,000/ made by the appellant and that there were other omissions in the sale proclamation inasmuch as it did number mention the date of auction, the tax payable in respect of Lot No.
1 and the revenue assessment in respect of Lot No.
80,000/ to Rs.
124 of 1981.
The attachment of the appellants property before judgment was made absolute on the date of the decree.
To execute the decree the respondent filed execution Petition No.
S. Krishnamoorthy and K. R. Choudhary for the Respondent.
Subsequently, the appellant filed Execution Application No.
It was alleged that the proclamation was number drawn up in accordance with law, that credit had number been given for a payment of Rs.
Lot No.
Lot No.
386/75.
They arose out of the dismissal of two applications, one for restoration of an application for possession and the other for removal of obstruction.
2 and 3 of 1976.
He claimed that the proclamation of sale and the companyduct of the sale was vitiated by several irregularities.
It was decided to put up the attached property in two lots for sale.
A civil suit by the respondent against the appellant was decreed in 1971.
222 of 1972 and prayed for sale of the attached property.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Madras High Court maintaining that objections in regard to a sale proclamation in proceedings for execution of a civil decree can be raised under rule 90 of Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure.
40,000/ for Lot No.
