Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. Mr. Dutt then referred to the case of Narayan Sahoo v. Mohant Damodar Das, (1912) 16 Cal WN 894 and argued that misstatement of value, even if it can be described as fraud does not constitute fraudulent concealment and would not by itself bring the case under Section 18 of the Limitation Act (now Section 17) unless it is shown that the judgment-debtor by means of fraud has been kept from the knowledge of his right.

16. Reference was also made to the case of Mujibar Rahman v. Raha Bux, and Mihirlal v. Panchkari, . In these cases, it has been held that mere under-statement in the valuation of sale proclamation does not amount to such fraudulent concealment as would bring the case within the scope of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, It was further observed that before any extension of time can be granted in an application for setting aside a sale it must be proved that the auction-purchaser -- a person not claiming through the decree-holder -- was either guilty of fraud or accessory to the fraud that prevented the judgment-debtor from knowing of the sale. It is significant that in the case before us the auction-purchaser is none other than the decree-holder. And he was the lone bidder at the sale. Mr. Dutt also referred to the case of New Birbhum Coal Company Limited v. Surendra Nath, (1933) 37 Cal WN 1054: (AIR 1934 Cal 205). This decision lays down that although the value set forth in the sale proclamation may have been grossly low and the sale, as a result thereof may have been for a price which caused substantial injury to the judgment-debtor, still if the latter having had knowledge of the under-valuation did not appear at the settlement of price, he cannot afterwards have the sale set aside on the ground of such under-valuation. What happened in this case was that the judgment-debtors were proved to have known of the under-valuation years before the actual sale while they stood by and took various other objections. It was only after the sale was effected that they made a grievance of the under-valuation and it was held that in such circumstances the judgment-debtors could not be permitted to take a stand that they had suffered by reason of under-valuation.