TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed: Lack of Notice on Sale Price Change Not Grounds for Setting Aside Sale</h1> <h3>B. Susila and Ors. Versus Saraswathi Ammal and Ors.</h3> B. Susila and Ors. Versus Saraswathi Ammal and Ors. - AIR 1970 Mad 357 Issues:Appeal against order dismissing application to set aside sale of house property in execution of decree. Grounds for setting aside sale: lack of notice, inadequate price, fraud in reducing upset price.Analysis:1. The appeal was against the order of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, dismissing the application to set aside the sale of a house property in execution of a decree. The appellants, supplemental defendants 3 and 4, filed the application under Order 21, Rule 96, Civil P. C., alleging lack of notice, inadequate price, and fraud in reducing the upset price. The sale took place on 19-6-1963, and the application was filed on 17-7-1963.2. The lower court concluded that the appellants were not entitled to notice regarding the reduction of the upset price and found no irregularity in the sale. It held that the property was not sold for an inadequate price, and the appellants did not suffer substantial injury due to any irregularity in the sale publication.3. The facts leading to the sale included multiple attempts to sell the property, reductions in upset price, and notices served to the appellants in previous applications. The question was whether the failure to give notice in the last application for reducing the upset price constituted a material irregularity under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C., allowing the sale to be set aside.4. The appellants argued that they were entitled to notice whenever changes were made to the upset price in the sale proclamation. However, the court clarified that there was no statutory obligation for the court to fix the upset price, and the judgment debtors were not entitled to notice of such changes.5. The court emphasized that the fixation of the upset price did not affect the parties' rights and was not a judicial act. It stated that the judgment debtors could challenge the sale's adequacy without needing notice of changes to the upset price by the decree-holder.6. The counsel for the appellants referenced previous court decisions but failed to show that lack of notice for reducing the upset price constituted material irregularity or fraud justifying setting aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C. Therefore, the court upheld the lower court's decision, finding no grounds for interference.7. No other points were raised, and the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
