http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: M. L. MUBARAK BASHA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MUNI NAIDU

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/01/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Heard the learned counsel for the parties.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the Division Bench judgment  of the  Madras High  Court, made  in LPA No. 205/1995 on August 28, 1995. The appellant had filed a suit, viz., O.S.  No. 69/1976  in the  Court of Subordinate Judge, Thiruvanamalai for  partition and separate possession of his 16/64 share  in the  plaint schedule property. A preliminary decree passed  for partition was confirmed. Before the final decree was  passed, the property at Item No.18 of the plaint schedule, namely,  Saw Mill,  was initially  brought to sale between the  parties, as  per the  directions of  the Court; subsequently, there  was a  public auction  thereof. In  the public auction,  the second  respondent came to purchase the property for a sum of Rs.1,03,600/-. An application had been filed by  the appellant  under  Section  47  of  C.P.C.  for setting aside  sale. though several grounds had been raised, none of  them was  pressed. But  one ground canvassed before the High  Court and  pressed for  consideration before us is that the Commissioner had no power to fix the upset price in conducting the  sale. Since  this point  was raised  for the first time  before the  High Court,  the Division  Bench has rejected the same and confirmed the sale though it was upset by the  learned Single  Judge. Thus,  this appeal by special leave.      It  has  been  strenuously  contended  by  the  learned counsel for  the appellants  that in  terms of the mandatory language used  in Order XXI, Rule 66, sub-rule (2)(d) & (e), CPC, the  Commissioner has  no power  to fix the upset price which is  the judicial  function of the Court. Therefore, it goes to the root of the matter. We have given opportunity to the learned  counsel to  place the necessary material before us in  that behalf. Both parties have filed their record and also their  affidavits. The  only question  is; whether  the Commissioner or the executing Court can fix the upset price? Order XXI Rule 66 postulates thus:      "66.  Proclamation   of  Sales   by      public  auction  -  (1)  Where  any      property is  ordered to  be sold by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    public auction  in execution  of  a      decree, the  Court  shall  cause  a      proclamation of  the intended  sale      to be  made in the language of such      Court.      (2)  Such   proclamation  shall  be      drawn  up   after  notice   to  the      decree-holder  and   the  judgment-      debtor and shall state the time and      place  of  state,  and  specify  as      fairly and accurately as possible -      (a) the  property to  be  sold  (or      where a  part of the property would      be  sufficient   to   satisfy   the      decree, such part);      (b) the  revenue assessed  upon the      estate or part of the estate, where      the  property  to  be  sold  is  an      interest in an estate or in part of      an estate  paying  revenue  to  the      Government;      (c) any  encumbrance to  which  the      property is liable;      (d) the  amount for the recovery of      which the sale is ordered; and      (e) every  other  thing  which  the      Court  considers  materials  for  a      purchaser to know in order to judge      of the  nature  and  value  of  the      property;      Provided that  where notice  of the      date for  settling the terms of the      proclamation has  been given to the      judgment-debtor  by   means  of  an      order under  Rule 54,  it shall not      be necessary  to give  notice under      this rule  to  the  judgment-debtor      unless the Court otherwise directs:      Provided further  that  nothing  in      this rule  shall  be  construed  as      required the  Court to enter in the      proclamation  of   sale   its   own      estimate  of   the  value   of  the      property,  but   the   proclamation      shall include the estimate, if any,      given by  either  or  both  of  the      parties.      (3) Every  application for an order      for sale  under this  rule shall be      accompanied by  a statement  signed      and   verified    in   the   manner      hereinbefore  prescribed   for  the      signing   and    verification    of      pleadings and containing, so far as      they  are   known  to   or  can  be      ascertained by  the  person  making      the   verification,   the   matters      required  by  sub-rule  (2)  to  be      specified in the proclamation.      (4) For the purpose of ascertaining      the matters  to be specified in the      proclamation, the  Court may summon      an person  whom it thinks necessary      to summon  and may  examine him  in      respect to  any  such  matters  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    require him to produce any document      in his possession or power relating      thereto.      Madras  and  Pondicherry  amendment      reads -  (i) In  Sub-rule  (1)  for      "made" substitute "drawn up".      (ii)  substitute  sub-rule  (2)  as      follows:      2. The  term of  such  proclamation      shall be  settled  in  Court  after      notice to  the D.H. and J.D. except      in cases where notices have already      been served  under Order  XXI, Rule      64  and   such  proclamation  shall      state the  time and  place of  sale      and specify  as accurately possible      - (a)  the property to be sold, (b)      the  revenue   assessed  upon   the      estate or  part of thee state where      the  property  to  be  sold  is  an      interest in an estate or part of an      estate  paying   revenue   to   the      Government, (c)  any encumbrance to      which the  property is  liable, (d)      the amount for the recover of which      the sale  is ordered, (e) the value      of the  property as  stated (i)  by      the D.H.  (ii)  by  the  J.D.,  (f)      every other  thing which  the Court      considers material  for a purchaser      to  know  in  order  to  judge  the      nature and value of the property."      A reading  of the  above provision would in unequivocal terms indicate  that it  is the function of the Court, while proclamation is  drawn up, to fix the amount of the recovery for which the sale is ordered and also to specify such other particulars as  are necessary  in that behalf to be material for the  purpose of  conducting the  sale. The  value of the property given  by the  decree-holder -  judgment-debtor and the upset  price is  to be  fixed under  the residue  clause relating to  writ rules  made by the High Court. The learned Single  Judge   himself  observed  in  his  order  that  the Commissioner who  has been  examined as RW-3 had stated that he had fixed the sale of the property and the upset price at Rs.70,000/- as  was ordered  by  the  Court  and  the  sixth respondent was the highest bidder in the said bid, viz., for Rs. 95,200/-. He had deposited the entire amount on the said date. It  is seen  that the  executing Court appears to have given direction  to the Commissioner not only to conduct the sale but  also to  fix the  upset price  at Rs. 70,000/-. In that view,  there is no infraction of the mandatory language contained in Order XXI, Rule 66, CPC as the Commissioner had fixed the upset price not on his own but on the direction of the Court itself.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.