Madras High Court
Ramanathan Chetty, Minor, By His Next ... vs A. R. A. R. S. M. Somasundaram Chettiar ... on 16 November, 1916
Equivalent citations: 37IND. CAS.897, AIR 1918 MADRAS 1264(1)
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal against a proclamation under Order XX , Rule 66, of the Code of Civil Procedure, fixing the market value and upset price of the property to be sold. The respondent takes the preliminary objection, relying on the Pull Bench decision in Sivagami Achi v. Subrahmania Ayyar27 M. 259 : 14 M. h. J. 57. that no appeal lies. To this, the appellant relips that this decision proceeds on the basis that such an order is administrative and not judicial, and that the deletion of the old Section 288 from the present Code implies that the Legislature intended to stamp the order with a judicial character. However, this may be, and we express no opinion on the point) we are clear that an order of the Court, tentatively fixing for the purpose of an auction sale the market value of the property, and deciding the figure at which the bidding should commence cannot be regarded as a conclusive determination of any right of parties, so as to come within the definition of a decree given in Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This being so, no appeal would lie. The view we have taken is in consonance with that adopted by a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Deoki Nandan Singh v. Bansi Singh 10 Ind. Cas. 371 : 14 C. L.J. 35. a case disposed of under the present Code of Civil Procedure.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.