JUDGMENT : NARAYANA PISHARADI, J. 1. This Original Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of Ext.P6 proclamation of sale made by the Family Court, Irinjalakuda in E.P No.11/2013 in O.P No.673/2005. 2. The petitioner herein is the sister of the second respondent. The first respondent is the wife of the second respondent. She had filed O.P No.673/2005 against the second respondent for granting a decree for return of money and gold ornaments. She obtained a decree against the second respondent in that case for realization of an amount of Rs.3,50,250/-with interest @ 18% per annum from 10-06-2005 till the date of realization. She filed E.P No.11/2013 for execution of the aforesaid decree. During the execution proceedings, the property which originally belonged to the father of the second respondent was attached. Then the petitioner herein filed an application as E.A No.12/2014 claiming half right over the aforesaid property. As per the order dated 25-09-2015, the execution court found that the entire property is not liable to be sold in the execution proceedings and that the decree holder is entitled to realize the decree debt by selling only one-half right of the second respondent in that property. The execution court found that the petitioner herein is one of the co-owners of the aforesaid property. The first respondent proceeded with the execution proceedings for sale of the aforesaid property. Exhibit P6 proclamation of sale was made by the execution court in respect of the property. 3. It is alleged by the petitioner that her right in the property is also proposed to be sold in execution of the decree including the area in which she has constructed a house and therefore, the proclamation of sale made by the execution court is not proper and valid. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the first respondent. 5. As per the order dated 25-09-2015 in E.A No.12/2014, the execution court has already found that the petitioner is one of the co-owners of the property which was proposed to be sold in execution of the decree. The execution court had also found that the entire property is not liable to be sold in execution of the decree and that the decree holder is entitled to execute the decree by selling only one-half right of the second respondent in the property. The execution court had also found that the entire property is not liable to be sold in execution of the decree and that the decree holder is entitled to execute the decree by selling only one-half right of the second respondent in the property. However, the description of the property given in Ext.P6 proclamation of sale gives an impression that the entire property including the right of the petitioner in it is proposed to be sold. The property is described in the sale proclamation as 7 ½ cents of property and the right of the judgment debtor over it and the house therein excluding the 7 ½ cents of property mentioned in E.A No.12/2014. What is proposed to be sold in execution of the decree is not the undivided share of the second respondent in the property but a definite portion of the property having an extent of 7 ½ cents. Without a partition of the property, the definite portion of the property over which the judgment debtor has got right cannot be ascertained. It is seen that the first respondent had filed a suit as O.S No.1030/2015 against the second respondent for partition of the aforesaid property and a preliminary decree has already been passed in that suit for dividing the property into two equal shares and allotment of one such share to the petitioner herein. The final decree proceedings pursuant to the preliminary decree passed in that suit are pending. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the description of the property given in Ext.P6 proclamation of sale is not proper and correct. 6. Order XXI Rule 66 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that the proclamation of sale shall specify as fairly and accurately as possible the property to be sold and everything the court considers material for a purchaser to know in order to judge the nature and value of the property. 7. In sales under the directions of the court, it is incumbent on the court to be scrupulous in the extreme. The execution court has a salutary duty and a legislative mandate to apply its mind before settling the terms of proclamation. No action of the court should be such as to give rise to a criticism that it was done in an indifferent or casual way. The execution court has a salutary duty and a legislative mandate to apply its mind before settling the terms of proclamation. No action of the court should be such as to give rise to a criticism that it was done in an indifferent or casual way. The court auction cannot be of an interest which is more than what the judgment-debtor has in the property. The relevant and material particulars should be inserted in the sale proclamation as accurately and precisely as possible. It is the obligation of the court to ensure that a fairly accurate description of the property is given in the proclamation of sale so as to secure the presence of such class of bidders who would make fair bids of property having regard to the size, location and other features of the property. A material misdescription of the property in a sale proclamation would vitiate the sale. The order of the court settling the proclamation for sale should reflect that the court has applied its mind to the matters to be specified in the proclamation. 8. There could be no dispute with regard to the fact that an undivided share of a co-owner of a property may be the subject matter of sale. But, a specified portion of he joint property cannot be sold in execution sale. What can be sold in the execution sale is the undivided share or right or interest of the judgment debtor in the joint property. A definite piece of the joint property cannot be sold describing it as the share of the judgment debtor. The purchaser, in case of sale of undivided right of the judgment debtor in the property, acquires only an equity to stand in the shoes of the judgment debtor and work out his right by means of a partition. In such a case, the purchaser cannot be put into possession of the property unless the property is partitioned by metes and bounds (see Ramdas V. Sitabai : AIR 2009 SC 2735 ). 9. In view of the aforesaid position of law, it is evident that only the undivided right of the second respondent in the property is liable to be sold in execution of the decree. The proclamation of sale should have contained a specific description with regard to the property in that manner. 9. In view of the aforesaid position of law, it is evident that only the undivided right of the second respondent in the property is liable to be sold in execution of the decree. The proclamation of sale should have contained a specific description with regard to the property in that manner. No definite area or portion of the joint property could be sold in execution of the decree. Therefore, we find that Ext.P6 sale proclamation is not valid and proper and it is liable to be set aside. 10. Consequently, we allow the Original Petition and quash Ext.P6 proclamation of sale. It is made clear that the first respondent is entitled to proceed against the undivided right of the second respondent in the property in execution of the decree.