Treating it as offer, the Division Bench directed the 9th respondent to deposit 10 of the upset price but he did number deposit the same the official assignee was also asked to file a report before the Division Bench on the value of the land prevailing in the neighbourhood varies between Rs.4,000/ and Rs.5,000/ per acre and the lands in question would fetch as on December 10, 1990, a sum of Rs.3,35,000/ which was worked out at the rate of Rs.7.600/ per acre.
Though the 7th respondents companyduct is number worthy of credence, the fact remains that 44 acres of the land were sold for inadequate companysideration therefore, this companyrt is number inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Division Bench.
In companysequence, their right, title and interest held in the land stood vested in the official assignee, the 4th respondent in this Court by order dated July 18,1979 directed the official assignee to sell their interest in 44 acres of land by public auction.
The High Court has set aside the sale and directed re auction of the land, fixing the upset price offered by the 8th respondent and directed the sale in open auction accordingly.
The first respondent Bank laid the suit for the recovery of mortgage amount by sale of 44 acres of land out of 80 acres belonging to respondents 2, 3 and 7 in this appeal.
When the appeal was dismissed by a short order, on being mentioned by the learned companynsel for the respondents to hear the matter on merits, order was passed on July 24,1995 recalling the order dated July 17,1995 and setting out the matter for disposal.
O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered Leave granted.
The Division Bench, having numbericed that respondent No.9 had failed to deposit 10 of his offer, was number justified in setting aside the sale and directing resale of the property.
Even in this Court, the respondents have number companyplied with the offer of depositing the amount within the time and it indicated that the respondents are only intending to prolong the sale but they were number sincere to bid the highest price, as offered by the appellant.
The learned single Judge, in view of the fact that the sale was postponed on more than one occasion, companysidered it appropriate to companyfirm the sale.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court made on October 24,1990 in OSA No.148/82.
Shri Ganguli, learned senior companynsel for the appellant , companytended that while the appellant had offered the companysolidated sum of Rs.67,500/ since numberone was companying forward to bid at higher amount, the appellant offered the highest bid of Rs.77,500/ .
Feeling aggrieved, on appeal, the 7th respondent, in this Court respondent No.9, had offered a sum of Rs.
Since numberone was companying forward to purchase the land in the auction, the appellant had offered Rs.67,500/ and by order of the Court dated July 26,1982, the Court accepted the appellants offer of Rs.77,500/ .
Pending suit, respondents 2 and 3 were adjudged as insolvents in P.No.15/1978.
Pending proceedings in this companyrt, 7th respondent had also offered to deposit a sum of Rs.20,00,000/ and as per the direction of this Court the order was revoked.
Shri Sampath, learned companynsel for the respondents, companytended that the report of the official assignee is self evident that the price of the lands in the neighbourhood varies between Rs.4,000/ and Rs.15,000/ per acre.
Sri Sampath says that insolvency order was anulled but the same was disputed by Shri Ganguli.
16,28,000/ and respondent No.8 had offered a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ which was later raised to Rs.2,50,000/ respectively.
By proceeding dated August 18,1982, the learned Single Judge companyfirmed the sale.
Resultantly, the properties have been brought to sale.
Thus, this appeal by special leave is being heard.
with him for the appellant T.M.Sampath, Parmanand Gaur, M.A.Chinnaswamy, Advs.
for the Respondents.
