Retheesh K G vs Neeloor Service Co Operative Bank Ltd. No.K.51, Represented By Its Secretary Joy Augustine

C. Jayachandran, J

The petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.74/2019 of the Munsiff Court, Pala arising from the Award in A.R.C.No.1125/2015. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P8 order, which fixed the upset price at Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs).

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, earlier by virtue of Ext.P6 order, the upset price was fixed at Rupees 2.5 lakhs, alleging that the same is on the lower side, as also, non-compliance of the statutory procedure. The petitioner approached this Court in O.P. (C)No.2073/2022, which culminated in Ext.P7 judgment. This Court set aside the order fixing the upset price at Rs.2.5 lakhs and remitted the matter to the learned Munsiff, with a direction to re-consider the Execution Petition after adverting to the objections of the petitioner, as also, the inputs to be provided by the petitioner. It is accordingly that Ext.P8 order has been passed. Learned counsel would submit that, as against Rs.2.5 lakhs fixed by the learned Munsiff vide Ext.P6 order, now the upset price has been reduced to Rs.2 lakhs. Even if the fair value notified in the area is reckoned, the upset price should have been Rs.2 lakhs and it is common knowledge that, the actual price of the property is always higher than the fair value fixed. This aspect has not been considered by the learned Munsiff, is the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Per contra, the above submissions were seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. It was pointed out that, no document, whatsoever, has been produced by the petitioner herein, in support of his claim that the property would fetch a better price. It was in such circumstance that, the learned Munsiff relied upon the fair value notification produced by the respondent herein. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P8 order does not warrant any interference from this Court.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court is of the opinion that reducing the upset price from Rs.2.5 lakhs as found in Ext.P6 order, to Rs.2 lakhs in Ext.P8 order, cannot be sustained. It is relevant to note that the fair value fixed for the locality is Rs.35,000/- per are. The total extent of the property is 5.58 ares. If that be so, the property would fetch, even by reckoning the fair value, a sum of Rs.1,95,300/-. It would only stand to reason and logic that, the property would fetch a price better than the value fixed by the Government, for the purpose of levy of the stamp duty. This aspect has not been considered by the learned Munsiff. It is true that the petitioner herein had not produced any evidence. However, it should be the endeavour of the court executing the decree to ensure that the property is sold at a reasonable, if not an optimum, price, which it can fetch.

In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that, the fair value ought to be fixed at 2.5 lakhs at least, as was done while passing Ext.P6 order. The contention of the petitioner while filing the earlier Original Petition was that, the said fair value fixed is on the lower side. Now on account of the challenge and a consequent remand, the petitioner cannot be put to a situation, which is worse than that obtaining as in Ext.P6.

In the circumstances, Ext.P8 order is set aside. This Court directs the learned Munsiff to fix the upset price at Rs.2.5 lakhs, as was done while Ext.P6 order was passed and to proceed with the same, in accordance with law.

The Original Petition will stand disposed of as above.