Skip to content


Seethammal Vs. Senthil Finance and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectCivil;Property
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 5092 of 1996.
Judge
Reported in1996IIIAD(SC)455; AIR1996SC1551; 1996(1)CTC715; JT1996(3)SC664; 1996(3)SCALE196; (1996)8SCC5; [1996]3SCR498
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 21, Rule 97
AppellantSeethammal
RespondentSenthil Finance and Another
Appellant Advocate R. Sundaravardhan,; C. Balasubramaniam and; K. Ram Kumar,
Respondent Advocate A.T.M. Sampath and ; T. Srinivasadhran, Advs.
Prior historyFrom the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.95 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No. 1895 of 1993.
Excerpt:
property - sale - order 21 rules 97 of code of civil procedure, 1908 - matter relating to validity of sale of property at lesser rate which also had encumbrance - property valued for rs. 75,000 was sold at auction for rs. 15,100 by respondent who was mortgagee to that property for amount of rs. 40,000 - sale held to be illegal for want of proper auction - appellant directed to deposit entire decretal amount. - insurance act (4 of 1938) preamble: [dr.arijit pasayat &asok kumar ganguly,jj] mediclaim policy-cancellation on ground of concealment of ailment - consumer forum directing revalidation of policy without considering admission made by insured and specific clause in policy providing for cancellation - matter remitted for fresh consideration......we are of the view that the sale is in excess of the execution. it is not in dispute that the property sold consists of a built-up house in a portion measuring 1053 sq. ft. the property was originally valued for a sum of rs. 75,000. but subsequently, it was reduced to rs. 50,000. at an auction, it was sold for a mere sum of rs. 15,000. the upset price was rs. 15,000. the respondent's bid was for rs. 15,100 and the sale was knocked down as stated earlier, subject to discharge of the mortgage for a sum of rs. 40,000. it is now stated by mr. a.t.m. sampath, the learned counsel for the second respondent that the respondent himself is a mortgagee of that property for a sum of rs. 40,000. it is, therefore, clear that nobody was coming forward to purchase the property and the respondent.....
Judgment:

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard counsel for both the parties.

3. In execution of money decree in O.S. No 67/87, the property, Le., 1053 sq. feet of land with built-in house was sold for a sum of Rs. 15,100 subject to discharge of the mortgage sum of Rs. 40,000 encumbered on the property. The appellant/judgment-debtor questioned the validity of the sale under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC. The executing Court rejected the same which was confirmed in C.R.P. No. 1895/93 by the impugned order dated September 26, 1993 of the High Court of Madras. Thus this appeal.

4. Having heard the learned Counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the sale is in excess of the execution. It is not in dispute that the property sold consists of a built-up house in a portion measuring 1053 sq. ft. The property was originally valued for a sum of Rs. 75,000. But subsequently, it was reduced to Rs. 50,000. At an auction, it was sold for a mere sum of Rs. 15,000. The upset price was Rs. 15,000. The respondent's bid was for Rs. 15,100 and the sale was knocked down as stated earlier, subject to discharge of the mortgage for a sum of Rs. 40,000. It is now stated by Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, the learned Counsel for the second respondent that the respondent himself is a mortgagee of that property for a sum of Rs. 40,000. It is, therefore, clear that nobody was coming forward to purchase the property and the respondent himself had purchased it for a sum of Rs. 15,100. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the sale conducted by the executing Court was obviously illegal. It is stated that the appellant had already deposited the entire decretal amount and it was withdrawn by the decree-holder also. In addition, the appellant is directed to deposit interest @ 18% from the date of the sale, namely, January 20, 1992 till date on the amount of Rs. 15,100 deposited by the respondent and the respondent shall be at liberty to withdraw the same. In addition, the appellant shall also pay a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards poundage fee. The amount shall be deposited within a period of six months from today.

5. The appeal is accordingly allowed subject to the above terms. No costs.


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