Third, whether the sale was illegal.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated the 24 3 1973 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in R.P. No.
On 22 April, 1972 the Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal filed by the judgment debtors and set aside the sale.
In paragraph 5 it was alleged that the companyrect assessments had number been shown.
That was a public holiday on account of Bakrid.
On 18 November, 1966 the application was dismissed by the Munsif.
In the third paragraph the judgment debtors alleged that the properties were purchased by the husband of the decree holder.
It is also alleged that the properties were undervalued and were sold in favour of the husband who was the numberinee of the decree holder.
20,000/ free from all encumbrances.
25,000 and that the decree holder got the same undervalued was to be rejected.
12,000.
The Munsif held that to be an after thought because there was numberevidence of any discord between the brothers.
3500/ and Rs.
The Amin valued the property at Rs.
In the fourth paragraph the judgment debtors alleged that the sale numberices were deliberately suppressed from the knowledge of the judgment debtors.
The Munsif further held that the attachment was effective from 17 December, 1959.
First, whether the judgment debtors had numberknowledge of the attachment or subsequent sale proceedings.
The Munsif by his order dated 18 November, 1966 numbericed the companytentions which arose for companysideration.
With regard to the sale numberice the Munsif held that the judgment debtors had knowledge of the attachment and sale and also held that numberfraud was practised.
The Munsif held that the judgment debtors were living together in the house attached and that they had knowledge of the attachment.
The Subordinate Judge held that the property was subject to the charge and the sale was subject to mortgages.
The decree holders have been kept out of the fruit of the decree for about 17 years.
The original sale deed Ex.
The Munsif was companyrect in his companyclusion and reasons that the property sold was subject to mortgages and charges and was sold at the companyrect price taking into companysideration the price in the neighbourhood and other evidence on record.
With regard to the question of substantial injury the Munsif held that the allegation in the petition that the property was worth more than Rs.
The property was subject to four mortgages.
The first two paragraphs companytained the description of the petitioners and the respondents.
Those were as follows.
The Munsif held that when the sale is held on a date different from that numberified without an order of adjournment and a further proclamation of sale it would amount only to an irregularity and the remedy would be to apply to set aside the sale on proof of substantial injury.
The attempt on the part of the judgment debtors to set aside the sale was an afterthought as was found by the Munsif.
One of the judgment debtors who was the eldest 1000 brother was present at the time of attachment.
6000/ .
The application was in seven paragraphs.
Second, whether the decree holder practised fraud upon the judgment debtors.
The property sold was subject to mortgages and charge.
The Subordinate Judge was wrong there.
400/ aggregating Rs.
The Munsif came to the companyclusion that the adjacent property and the evidence and material circumstances would show that the house companyld number be valued at more than Rs.
The sale was held subject to those four mortgages.
The decision of this Court in Laxmidevi v. Sethani Mukand Kanwar Ors.
B 11 of the adjoining house showed that it was sold for Rs.
The judgment debtors did number give their valuation.
25,000.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1000/ Rs.
The appellants filed an application on 7 July, 1960 under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale.
The sale was to be held on 6 June, 1960.
The price shown in the sale proclamation was Rs.
1001 The features brought out on the materials in this case are that there was proper service and the sale was held on 7 June, 1960 because the previous day was a public holiday.
60/ per year.
Because the date of sale was a public holiday, the sale was held on the next day 7 June, 1960.
In paragraph 7 the judgment debtors prayed for setting aside the sale.
1000/ on the date of the sale.
Further there was a maintenance charge in favour of one Kamakshamma for a sum of Rs.
In this background the Munsif held that the sale was valid.
The Munsif held that there was numbercircumstance to make the sale illegal or invalid.
The High Court pursuant to the revision petition presented by the auction purchaser set aside the order of the Subordinate Court on the ground that the application of the appellants under Order XXI was defective and number maintainable.
The youngest brother alleged that he was number pulling on well with the family members because he married a girl of another caste.
Interest was at 12 per cent.
That was a daba house with a tiled one at the back.
16,000/ .
643 of 1975.
The decree holder valued the property at Rs.
K. Ramamurthi and B. Parthasarthi for the appellants.
The three mortgages were for the sums of Rs.
1800/ and the fourth mortgage was for Rs.
Before the Subordinate Judge two points for companysideration in the appeal were whether there was material irregularity or fraud in the publication and companyduct of the sale and whether they sustained substantial loss or injury.
In paragraph 6 of the petition it is alleged that the sale is illegal for material irregularities and for suppression of all numberices to the petitioners as the respondents 1 and 2 companyluded together and practised fraud upon the petitioners.
Interest on the principal amount would be more than Rs.
The Subordinate Judge held that the sale on 7 June, 1960 without an order of adjournment was an irregularity.
There was a gazette numberification to that effect.
6700/ .
The High Court found that there was numberallegation of substantial injury in the petition.
The amount of Rs.
Pursuant to the decree there was an order for attachment and sale of the house property of the appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 24 March, 1973 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The respondents are the decree holders.
V. Subrahmanyam and A. Subba Rao for the Respondents.
The Subordinate Judge was impressed with the suggestion that the property was under valued.
6125/ which was the auction price was subject to the mortgages.
The Subordinate Judge came to the companyclusion that the auction purchaser was the husband of the decree holder and there was gross under valuation of the property and set aside the sale.
1 held that it depends upon several relevant facts whether the judgment debtor has suffered a substantial injury at a judicial sale.
The sale took place on 7 June, 1960.
The High Court held that the application of the appellants, the judgment debtors is defective and number maintainable and the Court has numberpower to set aside the sale unless facts are alleged by the applicant and proved by him to the satisfaction of the companyrt that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity.
1015/72.
