http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SEETHAMMAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SENTHIL FINANCE & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/03/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. NANAVATI G.T. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1551            JT 1996 (3)   664  1996 SCALE  (3)196

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Heard learned counsel for both the parties.      In execution  of money  decree in  O.S.  No.67/87,  the property, i.e.,  1053 sq.  feet of  land with built-in house was sold for a sum of Rs.15100/- subject to discharge of the mortgage sum  of Rs.43,000/- 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.      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.15,100/-. 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 the 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  It is  stated  that  the  appellant  had already deposited  the entire  decretal amount  and  it  was withdrawn  by  the  decree-holder  also.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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

respondent shall  be at  liberty to  withdraw the  same.  In addition, the  appellant shall  also pay  a sum of Rs.2000/- towards poundage fee. The amount shall be deposited within a period of six months from today.      The appeal  is accordingly allowed subject to the above terms. No costs.