Judgment : The 4th respondent owned a plot of land in Yemmiganur Town of Kurnool District. She obtained a loan of Rs.1,00,000/-from the Yemmiganur House Building Society Limited, 1st 2nd respondent herein, which is affiliated to A.P. House Federation, Kadapa, respondent herein in the year 1999. The plot referred to above was mortgaged as security through deposit of title deeds. Since the 4th respondent failed to clear the debt, the 2nd respondent initiated proceedings under Section 71 of the Cooperative Societies Act (for short ‘the Act’) before the concerned authority. A Recovery Certificate was issued for the amount of principal due, with interest thereon. Since that was not complied with, execution proceedings were initiated before the Cooperative Sub-Registrar/Recovery Officer, 3rd respondent herein by filing E.P.No.112/99-2000. The mortgaged property was put to sale. Out of it, an extent of 73.33 square yards together with three mulgies thereon was sold in the auction. The petitioner herein emerged as successful bidder for a sum of Rs.2,90,000/-. The sale was confirmed on 05.02.2004 and the sale certificate was also issued. The 4th respondent filed C.T.A.No.242 of 2004 before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad challenging the order confirming the sale passed by the 3rd respondent. One of the grounds urged was that though the mortgaged property viz., H.No.6/7, Car Street, Yemmiganur, admeasuring 236 square yards was shown as the property to be sold, a part of it covered by mulgies in an extent of 73.33 square yards was put to sale by tampering with the entries in the prescribed form. It was also mentioned that the 3rd respondent committed irregularity. The petitioner, who figured as 4th respondent in the appeal, contested the matter. Through its order, dated 31.03.2006, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition. Sri M.P.Chandramouli, learned counsel for the petitioner submits though the 4th respondent mortgaged a plot of 236 square yards, over the period, three mulgies were constructed with the amount borrowed from the 2nd respondent and on finding that the sale of a part of the property would be sufficient to liquidate the debt, that part of the property was brought to sale. He contends that the 4th respondent did not raise any objection when the sale was being effected and that it is always competent for the sale officer to sell a part of the attached property, if it is sufficient to liquidate the debt. He contends that the 4th respondent did not raise any objection when the sale was being effected and that it is always competent for the sale officer to sell a part of the attached property, if it is sufficient to liquidate the debt. Sri P.Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for the 4th respondent on the other hand submits that a serious irregularity was committed in the matter. He submits that the property that was described in column 4 of the prescribed form was not put to sale, but a portion of it was sold, by tampering with the entries in the proclamation. He further submits that in case, the 3rd respondent wanted to sell a portion of the property, he ought to have mentioned the same well in advance. He further submits that the value of the property was not mentioned as required under law. There is no opposition in the writ petition from the other respondents. The 4th respondent mortgaged a plot of 236 square yards bearing H.No.6/7, Car Street, Yemmiganur as security for repayment of loan of Rs.1,00,000/-obtained from the 2nd respondent. It is stated that as against Rs.1,00,000/-, she paid only Rs.20,000/-. For recovery of balance together with interest, the 2nd respondent initiated proceedings under Section 71 of the Act and recovery certificate was obtained. Section 71 of the Act and Rule 52 of the Rules made thereunder govern the execution of recovery certificates or other orders passed by the concerned authorities under the Act. Rule 52 prescribes a detailed procedure to be followed in the course of execution. It contains several important provisions and principles that are enunciated under various Rules of Order XXI C.P.C. As under Order XXI C.P.C., the description of the property, which is proposed to be sold, is one of the important steps. Added to that, the value thereof is required to be mentioned accurately. It is only when the property is properly described in all respects that the prospective purchasers would have a clear idea about it. It is no doubt true that Rule 52 of the Rules permits the sale of part of a mortgaged or attached property, in case such part is going to fetch the amount sufficient to liquidate the liability. However, the intention of the sale officer to sell part of the attached or mortgaged property must be clear from the proclamation itself. It is no doubt true that Rule 52 of the Rules permits the sale of part of a mortgaged or attached property, in case such part is going to fetch the amount sufficient to liquidate the liability. However, the intention of the sale officer to sell part of the attached or mortgaged property must be clear from the proclamation itself. He cannot furnish the description of the entire property in the concerned column and put part of it to sale, in the auction. Column No.4 of sale notice is earmarked for “description of immovable property to be sold belonging to the defaulter with filed number and letter”. In this column, the description of the property of the petitioner, is “the property situated in H.No.6/7 car street Measurement of the above plot East to west:-88’-66” feets-26.64 Mts North to South:-65’-6” feets – 20.24 Mts. .” Boundaries were also mentioned. In the column pertaining to ‘assessment’, nothing was mentioned. It is only in the column pertaining to ‘details of encumbrances’, that ‘Rs.1,80,950/-+ interest up to 31-5-2001’ was mentioned. Column No.3 pertains to the name of the defaulter. However, in that column, the 3rd respondent has mentioned the property bearing No.”5/19 and 5/20, Main roiad, H.No.6/18, Car Street, Yemmiganur”. This obviously is an interpolation and does not fit into the column at all. Further, nowhere in the sale proclamation, extent was mentioned as 73.33 square yards nor was it indicated that a part of the property would be put to sale. Ultimately, an extent of 73.33 square yards together with three mulgies thereon was put to sale and the petitioner became the highest bidder. In the appeal preferred by the 4th respondent, the Tribunal took note of the discrepancies as to the details of the property and other aspects and held that the sale is vitiated on account of the failure on the part of the 3rd respondent to follow the prescribed procedure. The petitioner is not able to point out as to how the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal or factual infirmity. It hardly needs any mention that the sale, whether brought under Order 21 C.P.C. or Rule 52 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, is required to be conducted strictly in accordance with law. Deviation from any prescribed step is prone to vitiate the entire process. It hardly needs any mention that the sale, whether brought under Order 21 C.P.C. or Rule 52 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, is required to be conducted strictly in accordance with law. Deviation from any prescribed step is prone to vitiate the entire process. The effort would be only to ensure that the sale is conducted properly and no party is put to prejudice. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner however shall be entitled to be refunded the amount deposited by him with interest at the rate and method that is followed by the 2nd respondent for the amounts advanced by it. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent may be required to pay the expenditure incurred by the petitioner towards stamp duty and registration charges. The facts as regards those are not clear. In case the amount was paid to the 2nd respondent and that in turn was paid towards stamp duty and registration charges, it shall be under obligation to refund. On the other hand, if the petitioner himself paid the stamp duty and registration charges, the 2nd respondent cannot straight away be required to refund the amount. If the petitioner feels that he has been subjected to loss or damage in this regard, it shall be open to him to file a suit. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of.There shall be no order as to costs.