AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Abdur Rahman, J.—It has been conceded by Mr. Rajah Aiyar, the counsel for the petitioner, that there was no proclamation before the
property, which happens to be one-eighth share in a village, was sold by public auction. Admittedly this is a material irregularity. It was not
seriously contested that the price at which the property was sold, was grossly inadequate. A firm offer was made by the objecting creditor in the
lower appellate Court to the extent of about double the price for which the property was knocked down at the auction sale. It was also admitted
that the purchaser is a close relation of the judgment-debtor.
The only point which was seriously contested by the Counsel for the petitioner was that the sale could not be set aside as the respondent had
failed to prove that the inadequacy in price was caused by reason of such irregularity.
At one point of time there was a divergence of views between the High Court of Allahabad on the one hand and those of the High Courts of
Madras and Calcutta on the other. The High Court of Allahabad was of opinion that the inadequacy in the sale price was not sufficient to set aside
the sale in the absence of direct evidence which established a causal connection between the material irregularity and the inadequacy of price
fetched at the sale. It was on the contrary held by the High Court of Madras in Venkatasubbaraya Chetti v. Zamindar of Karvetinagar ILR (1896)
20 Mad 150 that the fact that the inadequacy of price fetched at the auction was the result of the material irregularity committed in conducting the
sale, might ordinarily give rise to an inference that ""the low price was a consequence of irregularity even though the manner in which the irregularity
produced the low price be not definitely made out"". The High Court of Calcutta had taken a similar view in Slieorutton Singh v. Net Lall Sahu ILR
(1903) 30 Cal 1 and Mahabir Pershad Singh v. Dhanukdhari Singh ILR (1904) 31 Cal. 815
On account of this divergence of views, the CPC had to be amended and the words ""unless upon the facts proved the Court is satisfied"" have
been substituted to give effect to the decisions of the High Courts of Calcutta and Madras. It is no longer necessary to prove a causal connection
between the two by means of direct evidence; but a sale could be set aside if the Court were satisfied upon the facts proved in the case that there
were circumstances from which a reasonable inference might be drawn that the inadequacy in price was the result of the material irregularity,
although mere inadequacy of price, without either direct evidence or proof of such circum stances as mentioned above, would not be sufficient to
set aside the sale.
In this case, material irregularity has been admitted and the inadequacy in price which the property fetched at the sale was not seriously
contested. The fact that there was no proclamation might legitimately give rise to an inference that if the sale had been proclaimed, the intending
purchasers might have been present to bid for the property which might have fetched a higher price in consequence. It was, in any case, open to
the lower appellate Court to draw this inference and having done so, it cannot be said that it exercised a jurisdiction which did not vest in it. It
cannot, therefore, be questioned in revision.
I would, therefore, dismiss the petition with costs.