Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Item No. 1 :

House bearing Dr. No. 6/79 situated in Pedda Thambalam village, Adoni Taluk, DUr's value -Rs. 2,500/-; Amin's value -Rs. 3,000/-.

Item No. 2 :

House bearing Dr.No. 3/59 situated in Pedda Thambalam village. Adorn Taluk, DHr's value -Rs. 2,500/-; Amin's value -Rs. 3,000/-.

Item No. 3 :

House bearing Dr. No.3/59-1 situated in Pedda Thanibatam village, Adoni Taluk, DHr's value - Rs. 2,500/-; Amin's value -Rs. 3,000/-.

Land situated in Pedda Thambalam village, Adoni Taluk, as per details below:

Item No. Kind S.No. A-C Taram DA'S value Rs.

Amin's Value Rs.

Circar dry 3-53 7000/-

9000/-

-Do-

0-60 0-39 1200/-

1500/-

-do-

48-E 0-17 0-33 350/-

500/-

-do-

343-B 4-73 3-07 3500/-

4000/-

-do-

7-23 4-70 3500/-

7000/-

Land situated in Chinna Thambalam village, Adoni Taluk, as per details below:

Item Kind S. No. A-C Taram D.Hr's value Rs.

Amin's value Rs.

Circar dry out of S.No. 1016 6-60 10-03 5000/- subject to mortgage of Rs. 10000/ -of LMB, Adoni. 18000/-

8. Had a notice as required under Order 21, Rule 66 CPC been issued to the judgment-debtors before drawing up of sale proclamations, there could have been the possibility to avoid so many incurable defects, which ultimately rendered the very sale as illegal. One such defect is the non-mentioning of the value of the judgment-debtors of the EP schedule properties in the sale proclamations. Catena of decisions of various High Courts and also the Supreme Court show that a sale proclamation without disclosing the two valuations i.e., both of the decree-holder and that of the judgment-debtor suffers from irregularity which cannot be cured (See V. Rajagopal Naidu v. Muthulakshmi, ; C. Iyer v. Kunhamuthammad, ; Nagendra Iyer v. Varadaraja, ; T.E. George v. Sambamurthy, 1984 (2) ALT 19. In Gajadhar Prasad v. Bhakta Ratan, , the Supreme Court also took the same view.) The sale proclamations issued in this case, admittedly, do not contain the valuation as put by the judgment-debtors. It contained only the valuations as mentioned by the decree-holders and the Amin. These valuations alone do not reflect the true value of the EP schedule properties, as the decree-holders always try to under-value the property and the valuation of the Amin, in the absence of any concrete proof, cannot always be regarded as correct and independent valuation, as he proceeds on mere statements by the decree-holders and as he does not try to assess the value of the property with the help of any documents, or registers being maintained by any authority in this regard. Had the proclamation contained the valuation of the JDr., also, it could have become the upset price being the highest, in which case, the property would have fetched higher price. Non-mentioning of value of the judgment-debtors in the sale proclamation, therefore, goes to the very root of the sale, which ultimately vitiates the sale.