PUTTI KONDALA RAO & ORS. v. VELLAMANCHILI SITARATTAMMA & ANR.
Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 998; 1975 INSC 318
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: A.N. RAY , M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG, R.S. SARKARIA, P.N. SHINGAL
Judgment date:
Case summary
1975 INSC 318. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1975-12-12. PUTTI KONDALA RAO & ORS. v. VELLAMANCHILI SITARATTAMMA & ANR. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1976) 2 S. C. R. . A PUTTI KONDALA RAO & ORS. v. VELLAMANCHILI SITARATTAMMA & ANR. December 12, 1975 [A. N. RAY, c. J. , M. H. BEG, R. s. SARE:ARIA AND . B P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ. ] Code of Ci"i/ Proe'cdure-Order XX! , r. 90~Allegatio11s of substcmtial in· jury-If ca11 be implied from facts and circumstanc. es alleged. In an application under O. XXI, r. 90, Civil Procedure Code, the appellants (judgment·debtors) alleged that the sale of their property pursuant to an order of attachment was illegal for material irregularities. The trial Court held that •C where there was an irregularity in the procedure for sale, the remedy would be to apply to set aside the sale on proof of substantial injury and that there was no fraud in the sale, as alleged by the appellants. On . appeal, the first appellate Court held that the auction-purchaser was the husband. of the decree-holder and that there MIS gross under-valuation of the property and so set aside the sale.
On further appeal, the High Court held that the application of the appellants was defective and not maintainable and the Court had no power to set aside the sale unless facts were alleged and proved by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Court that he had sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : (I) The judgment of the trial Court should be restored. The trial Court was correct in its conclusion and reasons that the property sold was subject to mortgages and charges and was sold at the correct price, taking into consideration the price of the prope,rties in the neighbourhood and other evi- :E dence on record. f! OOO E, 1001 G] · (2) The judgment of the trial Court was wrongly rever,'ed by the first appellate court Substantial justice had' been done to the parties. [IOOt'.
C] (3) The High Court was not unjustified in holding that the application for setting aside the sale was bald and that there was no proper allegation of substantial injury to the appellants. Sometimes, however, there may not be express allegation• of substantial injury and the same may appear to be i~plicit from all facts and circumstances alleged. In the present case, the allegations in the . F petition coulct be read to imply substantial injury to the appellants. The trial Court as well as the first appellate court heard the parties and decided the case on the footing that there w ~cause the previous day was a public: holiday. The judgment debtors did not give their valuation. The property sold was subject to mortgages . and charge. The decree holders have been kept out of the fruit of the decree for about 17 years. The attempt on the part of the judgment debtors to set aside the sale was an afterthought as was found by the Munsif.
The Subordinate Judge was impressed with the suggestion that the property was under-valued. The Subordinate Judge was wrong there. The Munsif was correct in his conclusion and reasons that the property sold was subject to mortgages and charges and was sold at the correct price taking into consideration the price in the neighbourhood and other evidence on record. The High Court found that there was no allegation of substantial injury . in the petition. It appears from the record that the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court addressed themselves at length on the question of substantial injury. Parties were heard. They made their submi§sions. The conclusions of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are there. Counsel for the appellant submitted that if we set aside the juclg-ment of the High Court, the matter would have to be remanded for hearing on other points. It will serve no useful purpose to send the matter to the High Court on other qu-~stions.
There has been substantial justice done to the parties. The judgment of the Trial Court was wrongly reversed by the first Appellate Court .. The High Court was not unjustified on the materials to hold that the application for setting aside the sale was bald and there was no proper allegation of substantial injury to the judgment debtors. Sometimes, however, there may not be express aliegations of substantial injury and the same may appear to be implicit from all facts and circumstances alleged. In the present case, the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court heard the parties and decided the case on the footing that there were allegations of substantial injury to the judgment debtors. For these reasons we proceed on the basis that the allegations in the petition could be read to imply substantial injury to the ~judgment debtors.
It is not necessary to remand the matter to the High Court because we are of opinion that the judgment of the Trial Court is correct and should be restored. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. Tlie appellants will pay costs to the respondents. P. B. R. Appeal dismissed.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.