VENKATARAMAIYA, C.J. - (1.)THE Appellant is the decree -holder whose main grievance is that the lower Court has arbitrarily rejected Ills replication for permlsHloi1 to bid and purchase the properties of the judgment debtor for a sum of Rs. 16.000/ -. The decree amount for which he is allowed to buy the same is alleged to be very high. The decree was passed by consent on 17 -12 -1949 and this appears to have been made final in 1952.
(2.)NO payment is made or attempted to be mast by the judgment -debtor and sale of the properties has proved infructuous more than once. The last order in the execution case passà ((THELAW)) on 27 -6 -1955 was Degree -holder by Sri K.P. Immovable properties not sold for want of bidders. Decree -holder was permitted to bid. Sale coming on Filthy line. Decree -holder absent (which is contrary to the nine made at first). This petition is closed.
It is contended for the decree -holder that tem basted of way bid and any one 'joming award to buy the properties on Ave occasions, offer made by decree -holder should be treated the jest and that this was bona fide. Henchmen of the properties before judgment was applied for by the Plaintiff, the estimated value of the properties was mentioned as Rs. 12,000/ -and the value is repeated in the schedule to the decree passed by consent.

Thus amount claimed in the execution petition list its. 36,280/ - and odd and there is no particular reason apparently for compelling the decree -holder to purchase the properties for treble the amount at which ho valued them as the judgment -debtor wants him to do, when none else is prepared to offer any price. The judgment -debtor beyond averting that the properties are very valuable his not placed any material to support it or made any effort to raise money or secure buyers on any term:

(3.)IN the sale proclamation the estimated value is stated to be less than the decree amount and this not objected to It looks as if the persons disposed to buy the properties are kept out we avert the possibility of a sale for less than the decree amount with a view to force the properties on the decree -holder in full discharge of the decree. The lower Court has overlooked this and the futility of holding further sales without allowing the decree -holder to offer the bid proposed by him.
;