T. Krishnappa Vs. T.G. Ramachandra Guptha and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1144136
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided OnJan-02-2014
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 47615 of 2011 (GM-CPC)
JudgeK.L. MANJUNATH
AppellantT. Krishnappa
RespondentT.G. Ramachandra Guptha and Another
Excerpt:
(prayer: this petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, praying o quash the impugned order dtd.29.3.11 passed by the principal senior civil judge and jmfc, madhugiri in m.a.21/2005 vide annex-g, confirming the order dtd.23.2.2005 passed by the principal civil jude (jr. dn.), madhugiri on i.a.9 and 10 in ex.11/2000 vide annex-e.) order 1. the petitioner who is judgment debtor in execution no.11/2000 on the file of civil judge, (jr.dn.) madhugiri is questioning the rejection of his application for setting aside the sale of his agricultural land measuring 2 acres 24 guntas in an auction held on 21.3.2005 for a sum of rs.60,000/-. 2. heard the counsel for the parties. 3. the admitted facts in this writ petition are as hereunder: the 1st respondent obtained a money decree for a sum of rs.42,000/- in o.s.no.176/1998 which was decreed on 16.8.1999. to execute the decree the 1st respondent “ decree holder filed an execution petition no.11/2000 on the file of civil judge, (jr. dn.), madhugiri. in the execution proceedings, the land and house properties of the petitioner were got attached. however, 2 acres 24 guntas of agricultural land was brought for sale. accordingly, the sale was held on 21.3.2005 and confirmed in favour of the respondent-2 for a sum of rs.60,000/-. the same was questioned by the petitioner on the ground of material irregularities in conducting the same, which has resulted in ir-repairable injury and hardship to the petitioner. 4. the main grounds of attack for challenging the proclamation is that madhugiri taluk is educationally, socially and economically backward in the karnataka state and the people are also suffering from flurosis on account of non-availability of potable water. when such being the case, a proclamation has been issued in an english paper. contending that on account of proclamation issued in an english paper there were no proper bidders, though the property of the petitioner was worth more than rs. 8 lakhs, has been sold for a sum of rs.60,000/- which will not work out to rs.500/- per gunta. therefore, he requests the executing court to set aside the sale. 5. the executing court rejected the application. aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in m.a.no.21/2005 before the civil judge,(sr.dn.) madhugiri, which also came to be dismissed on the ground that though this hon. court in manjamma vs. suryanarayana rao reported in ilr 1986 kar 912 has ruled that sale proclamation shall be in court language, rejected the contention of the petitioner on the ground that issuance of sale proclamation in english has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. accordingly, appeal came to be dismissed. challenging the concurrent findings, the present petition is filed. 6. i have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 7. it is not in dispute that madhugiri taluk is socially, educationally and economically backward taluk in the state of karnataka. the people are suffering from flurosis on account of non supply of potable water. rainfall also is scanty. in such place if sale proclamation has been issued in english language, the persons who will be interested to participate in the auction will not be knowing about the auction to be held by the court. taking advantage of such situation, if the property measuring 2 acres 24 guntas has been sold for rs.60,000/- the court cannot close its eyes on the ground that no prejudice is caused, because of the sale proclamation made in english. the very purpose of issuing sale proclamation in the court language is to attract more bidders in the public auction and to see that no prejudice shall be caused to a judgment-debtor whose property is brought for sale. while conducting the auction, the court shall always exercise due care and caution and shall make all efforts to secure a better buyer and property shall be sold for a market value since the court has to act as a trustee for the judgment-debtor. 8. in the instant case, though the civil judge (sr.dn.) has come to be conclusion that in manjammas case, this court has ruled that proclamation shall always be in court language has wrongly held that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner on account of sale proclamation notified in english paper. this court is of the opinion that the approach of the civil judge, (sr.dn.), madhugiri is erroneous and liable to be set aside. it cannot be imagined by any court that 2 acres 24 guntas of agricultural land can be sold for a sum of rs.60,000/- in the year 2005. therefore, this court is of the opinion that both the courts did not consider the application of the petitioner for setting aside the sale. 9. the petitioner is willing to return the entire sale auctioned amount to the 2nd respondent along with reasonable interest. 10. in view of the same, the petition is allowed setting aside the sale confirmed in favour of the respondent subject to payment of rs.60,000/- with interest to be calculated from the date of deposit of the amount by the 2nd respondent with interest at 12% p.a. within 3 months from today. if the amount as directed is not deposited or paid by the petitioner, the trial court is directed to conduct to re-auction the property by taking out sale proclamation in accordance with law.
Judgment:

(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying o quash the impugned order dtd.29.3.11 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri in M.A.21/2005 vide Annex-G, confirming the order dtd.23.2.2005 passed by the Principal Civil Jude (Jr. Dn.), Madhugiri on I.A.9 and 10 in Ex.11/2000 vide Annex-E.)

ORDER

1. The petitioner who is Judgment Debtor in Execution No.11/2000 on the file of Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.) Madhugiri is questioning the rejection of his application for setting aside the sale of his agricultural land measuring 2 acres 24 guntas in an auction held on 21.3.2005 for a sum of Rs.60,000/-.

2. Heard the counsel for the parties.

3. The admitted facts in this Writ Petition are as hereunder:

The 1st respondent obtained a money decree for a sum of Rs.42,000/- in O.S.NO.176/1998 which was decreed on 16.8.1999. To execute the decree the 1st respondent “ decree holder filed an execution Petition No.11/2000 on the file of Civil Judge, (Jr. Dn.), Madhugiri. In the execution proceedings, the land and house properties of the petitioner were got attached. However, 2 acres 24 guntas of agricultural land was brought for sale. Accordingly, the sale was held on 21.3.2005 and confirmed in favour of the respondent-2 for a sum of Rs.60,000/-. The same was questioned by the petitioner on the ground of material irregularities in conducting the same, which has resulted in ir-repairable injury and hardship to the petitioner.

4. The main grounds of attack for challenging the proclamation is that Madhugiri taluk is educationally, socially and economically backward in the Karnataka State and the people are also suffering from Flurosis on account of non-availability of potable water. When such being the case, a proclamation has been issued in an English paper. Contending that on account of proclamation issued in an English paper there were no proper bidders, though the property of the petitioner was worth more than Rs. 8 lakhs, has been sold for a sum of Rs.60,000/- which will not work out to Rs.500/- per gunta. Therefore, he requests the Executing Court to set aside the sale.

5. The Executing Court rejected the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in M.A.No.21/2005 before the Civil Judge,(Sr.Dn.) Madhugiri, which also came to be dismissed on the ground that though this Hon. Court in Manjamma vs. Suryanarayana Rao reported in ILR 1986 KAR 912 has ruled that sale proclamation shall be in court language, rejected the contention of the petitioner on the ground that issuance of sale proclamation in English has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Accordingly, appeal came to be dismissed. Challenging the concurrent findings, the present petition is filed.

6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

7. It is not in dispute that Madhugiri Taluk is socially, educationally and economically backward taluk in the State of Karnataka. The people are suffering from Flurosis on account of non supply of potable water. Rainfall also is scanty. In such place if sale proclamation has been issued in English language, the persons who will be interested to participate in the auction will not be knowing about the auction to be held by the court. Taking advantage of such situation, if the property measuring 2 acres 24 guntas has been sold for Rs.60,000/- the court cannot close its eyes on the ground that no prejudice is caused, because of the sale proclamation made in English. The very purpose of issuing sale proclamation in the court language is to attract more bidders in the public auction and to see that no prejudice shall be caused to a Judgment-debtor whose property is brought for sale. While conducting the auction, the court shall always exercise due care and caution and shall make all efforts to secure a better buyer and property shall be sold for a market value since the court has to act as a Trustee for the Judgment-debtor.

8. In the instant case, though the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) has come to be conclusion that in Manjammas case, this court has ruled that proclamation shall always be in court language has wrongly held that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner on account of sale proclamation notified in English paper. This court is of the opinion that the approach of the Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Madhugiri is erroneous and liable to be set aside. It cannot be imagined by any court that 2 acres 24 guntas of agricultural land can be sold for a sum of Rs.60,000/- in the year 2005. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that both the courts did not consider the application of the petitioner for setting aside the sale.

9. The petitioner is willing to return the entire sale auctioned amount to the 2nd respondent along with reasonable interest. 10. In view of the same, the petition is allowed setting aside the sale confirmed in favour of the respondent subject to payment of Rs.60,000/- with interest to be calculated from the date of deposit of the amount by the 2nd respondent with interest at 12% p.a. within 3 months from today. If the amount as directed is not deposited or paid by the petitioner, the Trial Court is directed to conduct to re-auction the property by taking out sale proclamation in accordance with law.