Judgment :- 1. This revision is filed by the legal heirs of the judgment- debtor in O.S.No.104 of 1981, on the file of District Munsifs Court, Perambalur. 2. The material averments may be summarised as follows: The original defendant Andi Padayachi is the judgment-debtor in the case. First respondent herein filed a suit and obtained simple money decree against the defendant. In execution of the decree, property belonging to deceased defendant was attached for realisation of the decree amount on 27.11.1982. The decree amount payable as per the Execution Petition was below Rs. 9,000. For realising this amount, 6 acres of land with various trees and a well were brought to sale. It is the case of the defendant that there was no proper proclamation for sale and he was also not given prior notice before settlement of proclamation. 3. Originally the upset price was fixed at Rs.40,000 and the entire property was brought to sale. The sale was posted on 1.2.1984. On that date, the sale did not take place for want of bidders. Immediately thereafter, first respondent/decree-holder filed an application to reduce the upset price. Case of the defendant is that he has not been served with any notice. But the lower court has found that notice was attempted to he served on him, but it was refused. The upset price was reduced from Rs.40,000 to Rs.30,000, and the property was advertised for sale. The sale was posted to 25.4.1984. On that date, the sale took place and second respondent herein purchased four acres of property for Rs.30,010. Out of six acres, four acres were sold for Rs.30,010, when the amount to be realised as per the decree was below Rs.9,000.Few days after the sale, the second respondent sold the property to respondents 3 to 6, who are none other than the children of the decree-holder. It is the case of the petitioner (deceased defendant) that the auction purchaser was really a benami for the decree-holder, and the subsequent conduct of selling the property to respondents 3 to 6 is ample proof for the same. Thereafter, the defendant was also evicted from the property. 4. This application E.A.No.302 of 1985 is filed by defendants widow and children, questioning the validity of the sale. 5. Serious objection was filed by the decree-holder, auction purchaser and purchasers of property from the auction purchaser. Thereafter, the defendant was also evicted from the property. 4. This application E.A.No.302 of 1985 is filed by defendants widow and children, questioning the validity of the sale. 5. Serious objection was filed by the decree-holder, auction purchaser and purchasers of property from the auction purchaser. Ail of them contend that all the proceedings were taken in accordance with law. In regard to the petitioners contention that for recovery of Rs.9,000, four acres of property was sold for Rs.30,000, the respondents would contend that the property could be sold only as one block, and, therefore, there is no illegality. 6. The Executing Court took evidence in the case and came to the conclusion that the application is barred by limitation. If further held that the application ought to have been filed under O.21, Rule 30, C.P.C. and not under Sec.47, C.P.C. It was further held that no illegality or irregularity was committed, and everything was done procedurally and in accordance with law, and that too with notice or knowledge of the judgment debtor. It is against the said order, this revision is filed. 7. On going through the evidence, regarding the irregularities committed for attachment, settlement of proclamation, etc., 1 do not think that I should interfere in revision, for, the same is based on evidence only. But I find great force in the contention of the petitioners herein that a clear mandate of law has been violated in this case. Under O.21, Rule 64, C.P.C, a duty is cast on court to sell only such portion of the property as may be necessary to satisfy the decree. O.21, Rule 64, C.P.C. reads thus: “Any court executing a decree may order that any property attached by it and liable to sale, or such portion thereof as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree, shall be sold, and that the proceeds of such sale, or a sufficient portion thereof, shall be paid to the party entitled under the decree to receive the same.” In this case, six acres, of property belonging to the judgment- debtor were brought to sale. At that time, the decree amount was less than Rs.9,000. The upset price was fixed at Rs.40,000. When the property was brought to sale, on the first day of sale, due to want of bidders, the sale was stopped. At that time, the decree amount was less than Rs.9,000. The upset price was fixed at Rs.40,000. When the property was brought to sale, on the first day of sale, due to want of bidders, the sale was stopped. Thereafter, the decree-holder filed an application to reduce the upset price, and the upset price was reduced to Rs.30,000 for the entire 6 acres. 8. On 26.5.1984, the auction was conducted and four and odd acres were sold in auction, the second respondent herein purchased it for Rs.30,010. The contention of the petitioners is specifically stated in ground(s) of their petition which reads thus: “The amount due to 1st respondent comes to only Rs.9,000 and odd on the date of sale. This Honourable Court should have sold only portion of the property which would be sufficient to satisfy the decree and it is illegal on the part of this Hon’ble Court in bringing the entire property to sale for a paltry sum of Rs.9,000 and odd and payable by 1st petitioner. Thus the sale of entire property in court auction has materially affected the rights of 1st petitioner and his family and they are now left in the street without any reasonable avocation.“ The same is answered in the counter in paragraph 13 thus: "TAMIL" The finding of the Executing Court is contained in the last portion of paragraph 10, which reads thus: "TAMIL" The conclusion arrived by the Executing Court also shows that it is because the property is one block, the same had to be sold as such. But, in my view, this conclusion of the executing court is illegal and without understanding the legal position. 9. In Takkaseela Peddala Subba Reddi v. Pujari Padmavathamma and others Takkaseela Peddala Subba Reddi v. Pujari Padmavathamma and others Takkaseela Peddala Subba Reddi v. Pujari Padmavathamma and others , (1977)3 S.C.C. 337 : 90 L.W. 24 (S.N.) at page 340, after extracting O.21, Rule 64, C.P.C., their Lordships said thus: ”Under this provision the Executing Court derives jurisdiction to sell properties attached only to the point at which the decree is fully satisfied. The words “necessary to satisfy the decree” clearly indicate that no sale can be allowed beyond the decretal amount mentioned in the sale proclamation….“ 10. The words “necessary to satisfy the decree” clearly indicate that no sale can be allowed beyond the decretal amount mentioned in the sale proclamation….“ 10. The said decision was followed in Ambati Narasayya v. M.Subba Rao and another Narasayya v. M.Subba Rao and another Narasayya v. M.Subba Rao and another . (1939)2 S.C.C. (Supp.) 693: (1991) 1 L.W.. 602 and while considering the same, their Lordships said thus: ”O.30. Rule 64, C.P.C. enjoins that in all execu- tion proceedings, the Court has to first decide whether it is necessary to bring the entire attached property to sale or such portion thereof as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree. If the property is large and the decree to be satisfied is small, the court must bring only such portion of the property, the proceeds of which would be sufficient to satisfy the claim of the decree-holder. It is immaterial whether the property is one or several. Even if the property is one, if a separate portion could be sold without violating any provision of law only such portion of the property should be sold. This, is not just a discretion, but an obligation imposed on the court. The sale held without examining this aspect and not in conformity with this mandatory requirement would be illegal and without jurisdiction.“ In that case, the execution petition was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,400 and, to realise the amount, an area measuring 10 acres were sold for Rs. 17,000. A contention was raised that since the land being one which could not be divided, such a large area was sold. Court held that such a contention was against common sense and cannot be accepted. Out of 10 acres, the court could have conveniently demarcated a portion and sold it. In paragraph 7 of the judgment, their Lordships held thus: ”It is of importance to note from this provision that in all execution proceedings, the court has to first decide whether it is necessary to bring the entire attached property to sale or such portion thereof as may. seem necessary to satisfy the decree. If the property is large and the decree to be satisfied is small, the court must bring only such portion of the property, the proceeds of which would be sufficient to satisfy the claim of the decreeholder. It is immaterial whether the property is one or several. seem necessary to satisfy the decree. If the property is large and the decree to be satisfied is small, the court must bring only such portion of the property, the proceeds of which would be sufficient to satisfy the claim of the decreeholder. It is immaterial whether the property is one or several. Even if the property is one, if a separate portion could be sold without violating any provision of law only such portion of the property should be sold. This, in our opinion, is not just a discretion, but an obligations imposed on the court. Care must be taken to put only such portion of the property to sale the consideration of which is sufficient to meet the claim in the execution petition. The sale held without examining this aspect and not in conformity with this requirement would be illegal and without jurisdiction. In paragraph 8, their Lordships further went on and said thus: “The land is not indivisible. Nor division is impracticable or undesirable. Out of 10 acres, the Court could have conveniently demarcated a portion and sold it. Unfortunately, no such attempt was made and it was not even thought of. The court has blindfold sold the entire property. This is a usual feature which we have noticed in most of the execution cases. We must deprecate this tendency. There is duty cast upon the court to sell only such property or a portion thereof as necessary to satisfy the decree. It is a mandate of the legislature which cannot be ignored. [Italics supplied] 11. In S.S.Dayananda v. K.S.Nagesh Rao and others S.S.Dayananda v. K.S.Nagesh Rao and others S.S.Dayananda v. K.S.Nagesh Rao and others , (1997)4 S.C.C. 451 , it was held thus: “It is seen that the High Court has noted that the procedural compliance of O.21, Rule 64, C.P.C. was not adhered to which is a mandatory requirement as held by this Court in Desbandhu Gupta v. N.L.Anand and Rajinder Singh Desbandhu Gupta v. N.L.Anand and Rajinder Singh Desbandhu Gupta v. N.L.Anand and Rajinder Singh , (1994)1 S.C.C. 131 : (1994)1 L. W. 49. Equally the sale consideration of the property was in excess of the execution. [Italics supplied For that reason, the sale was held to be illegal and set aside. 12. Equally the sale consideration of the property was in excess of the execution. [Italics supplied For that reason, the sale was held to be illegal and set aside. 12. In a still later decision reported in Chand v. VII Additional District Judge and others Chand v. VII Additional District Judge and others Chand v. VII Additional District Judge and others , (1997)3 Supreme. 21 , the said position was reiterated in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment. Their Lordships said that such a sale is one without jurisdiction. In that last case, their Lordships followed an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in , (1994)1 S.C.C. 131 : (1994)1 L. W. 49, wherein their Lordships considered whether the entire property should be sold for recovery of a paltry amount and whether that is a matter which comes only under O.21, Rule 90, C.P.C.While considering the same, it was held, after extracting the passage from Desh Bandhu Guptas case thus: “Yet another contention of Mr.Gupta is that the sale of the plot of 550 sq.yards is in excess of the execution and the order to sell it is the result of non-application of mind touching the jurisdiction of the court rendering the sale void or manifestly illegal. Therefore, the need to invoke O.21, Rule 90 does not arise and it can be set aside under Sec.47, C.P.C.”% This contention of the learned counsel was accepted, as could be seen from the further portions of the reports, and the finding was that the court did not apply its mind in selling the property. 13. I also had occasion to” consider a similar question in the decision reported in Athianna Gounder and another v. Kumaraswamy (now deceased&) and R.Natarajan and others Athianna Gounder and another v. Kumaraswamy (now deceased&) and R.Natarajan and others Athianna Gounder and another v. Kumaraswamy (now deceased&) and R.Natarajan and others, (1997)1 MLJ. 657: (1997)1 L.W. 374 . I have already extracted the allegations, the answer and the finding of the executing court. It is clear therefrom that the court did not apply its mind, whether some portion could be sold. A patent illegality can be seen. I have already said that the property is more than 6 acres. Four acres have been sold for Rs.30,010 when the decree is below Rs.9,000. It is clear therefrom that the court did not apply its mind, whether some portion could be sold. A patent illegality can be seen. I have already said that the property is more than 6 acres. Four acres have been sold for Rs.30,010 when the decree is below Rs.9,000. The contention that the property could not be sold without division, is belied by the fact that leaving the 4 and odd acres, an extent of 2 acres is till available. That itself will be, sufficient to satisfy the decree. Why the decree-holder insisted on selling a larger extent of property is not explained by him. In this connection, it may also be noted that the parties are very close relations, and the decree-holder is also aware about minute details of the property. If the decree-holder really wanted only to realise the decree amount, he could have purchased the two acres which were left out. The lower court also did not apply its mind and simly agreed with the decree-holder for selling the four acres on the ground that it is one block. It is large area of property. It cannot be imagined that it cannot be divided. Another failure of the court below in rendering a proper finding could be seen from the evidence of the decree-holder himself wherein he has said thus: "TAMIL" His own admission is clear proof that the property could be separately sold. After the auction, respondents 3 to 6 have purchased the property from the auction purchaser. Whether it is by one sale deed or by independent sale deeds, one thing is clear, namely, that the property could be enjoyed after partition. So, the contention that it could be enjoyed only as one block also has to be found against. 14. A Commissioner was deputed in this case at the instance of the petitioners. From the Report of the Commissioner, it is clear that it could be enjoyed after partition. It is further clear therefrom that a fertile agricultural land has been sold for small consideration. At any rate, such a sale was not necessary for realising a paltry sum of nearly Rs.9,000. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that an application under O.21, Rule 90, C.P.C. should have bene filed, and since the application was not filed under that provision, this Court should not interfere in revision. 15. At any rate, such a sale was not necessary for realising a paltry sum of nearly Rs.9,000. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that an application under O.21, Rule 90, C.P.C. should have bene filed, and since the application was not filed under that provision, this Court should not interfere in revision. 15. I need answer this point only on the basis of the decision reported in Nani Gopal Paul v. T.Prasad. Singh and others Nani Gopal Paul v. T.Prasad. Singh and others Nani Gopal Paul v. T.Prasad. Singh and others , J.T. (1995)3 S.C. 387. In paragraph 4 of that judgment, their Lordships held thus: “…Though, as contended by Sri Ganesh that normally an application under O.21, Rule 89 or 90 or under Sec.48, C.P.C. need to be filed within limitation to have the sale conducted by the court set aside and that procedure need to be insisted upon, we are of the view that this Court or Appellate Court would not remain a mute or helpless spectator to obvious and manifest illegality committed in conducting court sales…” 16. As held in the decision reported in Desk Bandhu Gupta v. N.L.Anand and Rajinder Singh Desk Bandhu Gupta v. N.L.Anand and Rajinder Singh Desk Bandhu Gupta v. N.L.Anand and Rajinder Singh , (1994)1 S. C. C. 13: (1994) 1 L.W. 49 and also in (1989)2 S. C. C. (Supp.) 693: (1991)1 L.W. 602, the court sale was one without jurisdiction. It is one without jurisdiction and a nullity, the application can come only under Sec.47, C.P.C. and not under O.21, Rule 90, C.P.C. 17. In this case, the judgment-debtors have been disposessed and that too with police help. Since I have held that the sale has been declared illegal, and the same is one without jurisdiction, the petitioners herein are entitled to get recovery of possession. The Executing Court, without waiting for any further application from the judgment-debtors, is directed to order re-delivery of the property within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, there is any obstruction from any of the respondents, the obstruction will also be removed with police help. The Executing Court is directed to comply with this direction without default and inform this Court about the compliance. 18. In case, there is any obstruction from any of the respondents, the obstruction will also be removed with police help. The Executing Court is directed to comply with this direction without default and inform this Court about the compliance. 18. Only after re-delivery is ordered, and the property is handed over to the petitioners, the decree-holder will be allowed to proceed with the execution. The revision petition is allowed with costs.