EDARA PATTABI SRIRAMA Vs. THADIKAMMAL VEERABHADRA APPALA CHINA RAJANNA
LAWS(APH)-1972-4-5
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on April 12,1972

EDARA PATTABI SRIRAMA Appellant
VERSUS
THADIKAMMAL VEERABHADRA APPALA CHINA RAJANNA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Kondaiah, J. - (1.) This appeal by a judgment-debtor gives rise to a short question of procedural law as to whether the executing court is bound to fix an upset price under Order 21, Rule 66 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) In order to appreciate the scope of the question, it is necessary to briefly state the material facts which are not in dispute and which lie in short compass; The 1st respondent obtained a money decree in O.S.No.110 of 1969 for a sum of about Rs. 49,500.00 on 22/04/1970 against the appellant and the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. In execution of the decree, "A" and "B" schedule properties were sought to be sold. The values furnished by the appellant and the decree holder in respect of the "A" schedule property are Rs. 1,20,000.00 and Rs. 25,000.00 respectively. The court Amin valued the same at Rs. 40,000.00. The aforesaid values have been given in the sale proclamation. The request of the appellant to fix an upset price in view of the great disparity between the values given by him and decree-holder was rejected by the court which directed the sale of the property. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant preferred this appeal.
(3.) Miss. V. Lakshmi Devi , the learned counsel for the appellant, relying upon the decision of the Madras High court in Arunachala Thammal v. T. Kanagasabathi Pillai, AIR 1955 Mad 720, contends that the court should fix upset price of the property in view of the wide disparity between the values given by her client and the decree-holder. This plea of the appellant has been resisted by Mr. N. C. V. Ramanujachari, the learned counsel for the decree holder, contending inter alia that the appeal is not maintainable. In reply, the appellants counsel prayed for the conversion of the appeal into a civil revision petition in case this court uphold the preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the appeal raised by the respondent.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.