1927 JTR(Mad) 262
1927 AIR(Mad) 1009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S. K. Veeraswami Pillai
Versus
Kalyanasundaram Mudaliar
Decided On : 20 April, 1927
The omission to state the value of the property is not a material irregularity when parties differ on the value, but a gross under-statement of value in the proclamation is a serious irregularity.
Irregularity - Property Value - The court held that the omission to state the value of the property is not a material irregularity, especially when the parties differ on the value. A gross under-statement of value in the proclamation was considered a serious irregularity.
Fact of the Case:
The court discussed the omission to state the value of the property and its significance when parties differ on the value.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the omission to state the value of the property is not a material irregularity and a gross under-statement of value in the proclamation is a serious irregularity.
Issues: The issue of whether the omission to state the value of the property constitutes a material irregularity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases where parties differ on the value of the property, the omission to state the value is not a material irregularity, and a gross under-statement of value in the proclamation is considered a serious irregularity.
Final Decision: The appeal failed and was dismissed with costs.
Irregularity - Property Value - The court held that the omission to state the value of the property is not a material irregularity, especially when the parties differ on the value. A gross under-statement of value in the proclamation was considered a serious irregularity.
Fact of the Case:
The court discussed the omission to state the value of the property and its significance when parties differ on the value.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the omission to state the value of the property is not a material irregularity and a gross under-statement of value in the proclamation is a serious irregularity.
Issues: The issue of whether the omission to state the value of the property constitutes a material irregularity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases where parties differ on the value of the property, the omission to state the value is not a material irregularity, and a gross under-statement of value in the proclamation is considered a serious irregularity.
Final Decision: The appeal failed and was dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
1. It has never been held that the omission to state the value of the property is a material irregularity. When the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor differ hopelessly as to the probable value of the property, a statement as to the value by the Court is at best a guess and the Court may, in the circumstances of a particular case, consider it better to abstain from such guess. The case in Saadatmand Khan v. Phul Kuar [1898] 20 All. 412 decided that where a Court has chosen to state the value in the proclamation, a gross under-statement is a serious irregularity. The other cases relied on by the vakil for the appellant do not help him The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.