Q. What are the equivalent citations for Thiruvengadasami Iyengar vs Govindasamy Udaiyar ?

The equivalence citation are105 IND. CAS. 212 ; AIR 1927 MAD 943 ; LQ/MadHC/1927/185 ;

Thiruvengadasami Iyengar Vs. Govindasamy Udaiyar On 30 March, 1927

Open iDraf

Thiruvengadasami Iyengar v. Govindasamy Udaiyar

Thiruvengadasami Iyengar
v.
Govindasamy Udaiyar

(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

No | 30-03-1927

Jackson, J

[1] The question is raised whether in the light of Munshi Raghunath Singh v. Hazari Sahu [1917] 2 Pat. L. J. 130 my direction as regards the sale was correct. I cannot see that it is incorrect within the terms of Order 21, Rule

66. A Court undertaking to give valuation which would be a real guide to a bidder even if it did not inspect the property itself, would at any rate, have to accumulate copious data and hold an elaborate inquiry. The law requires that the Court as fairly and accurately as possible shall state anything which the Court considers material for a purchaser to know. If it considers a fair and accurate report of the value given by three persons material for the purchaser and nothing more in that particular respect, the Court will not, in my opinion, have erred. If it itself mistakes the value, that is an entirely different matter, and it is that which the Privy Council, is considering in Sadatmand Khan v. Phul Kuar [1898] 20 All. 412 cf. Sivasami Naicker v. Ramasami Naicker [1900] 23 Mad. 568 The same view as that which I have endeavoured to set forth is held by the Calcutta Bench in Kashi Pershad Singh v. Jumna Pershad Sahai [1904] 31 Cal. 922.

[2] The stay petition is not now pressed as being unnecessary and it is dismissed with costs.

[3] Memorandum of costs will follow.

Advocates List

For the Appearing Parties ----

Bench List

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JACKSON

Eq Citation

105 IND. CAS. 212

AIR 1927 MAD 943

LQ/MadHC/1927/185

HeadNote

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 21, R. 66 — Sale of immovable property by Court — Valuation report — Court's duty to give — Held, Court undertaking to give valuation which would be a real guide to a bidder even if it did not inspect the property itself, would at any rate, have to accumulate copious data and hold an elaborate inquiry — Law requires that Court as fairly and accurately as possible shall state anything which Court considers material for a purchaser to know — If it considers a fair and accurate report of the value given by three persons material for the purchaser and nothing more in that particular respect, Court will not, in the opinion of the learned Judge, have erred — If it itself mistakes the value, that is an entirely different matter