1996 (8) TMI 473 - SC - Indian Laws

Money decree - Held that - The decretal amount deposited by the judgment-debtor, respondent no.1, in the Court shall be paid to the appellant decree-holder.In these circumstances one-half of the total amount deposited by the appellant in the Court in accordance with the order dated 6. 8.1991, together with the accretions thereto must be paid to the Judgment-debtor, respondent no.1 while the remained one-half of the total amount be refunded to the appellant. The executing court should proceed forthwith to restore possession of the property to the judgment-debtor, respondent no.1. The Appellant must pay the amount due upto the date of restoration of possession according to the interim order dated 6.8 1991, to be disbursed in the manner indicated above.On compliance of the above directions the executing court is to record full satisfaction of the. decree and strike off the execution. The executing court is to make such orders as be necessary for giving full effect to these directions. We direct, accordingly

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance with Order XXI Rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Validity of the auction sale due to the shortfall in the deposit.
3. The executing court's power to extend the time for deposit.
4. Responsibility for the mistake in the calculation of the decretal amount.
5. Appropriate relief and restoration of possession.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-compliance with Order XXI Rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The main point for decision is whether there is non-compliance with Order XXI Rule 85 to render the auction sale void. It is beyond controversy that the full amount of purchase money payable by the purchaser into the Court was not paid by him within 15 days from the date of the auction sale. The appellant did not make any deposit on the date of the auction and claimed adjustment of the decretal amount against the sale price. Even after the decretal amount was set off, there was a shortfall in the sale price. The appellant deposited Rs.3,727.25 after the expiry of the prescribed period, which fell short of the sale price of Rs.23,500/-. The High Court held that the full amount of the sale price not being deposited within the time fixed under Order XXI Rule 85, the deposit of the balance amount much later did not cure the defect, rendering the sale void.

2. Validity of the auction sale due to the shortfall in the deposit:
The appellant argued that the consequences of Order XXI Rule 85 do not ensue because the shortage in deposit was due to a mistake of the Court in specifying a lesser amount in the sale proclamation. However, the Supreme Court referred to the case of Manilal Mohanlal Shah and Ors. Vs Sardar Ahmed Sayed Mahamad & Anr, which held that the provisions of Order XXI Rules 84, 85, and 86 are mandatory. Non-compliance with these provisions renders the sale proceedings a complete nullity. The Court stated that the failure to comply with Rule 85's strict requirements results in no sale at all.

3. The executing court's power to extend the time for deposit:
The argument that the executing court has inherent power to extend the time due to its own mistake was expressly rejected. The Supreme Court held that the executing court does not have the power to extend the period prescribed for payment of the full sale price under Order XXI Rule 85. The Court emphasized that the mandatory nature of Rule 85 precludes any extension of time for depositing the full purchase money.

4. Responsibility for the mistake in the calculation of the decretal amount:
The appellant's claim that the shortfall in the deposit was due to a mistake of the executing court in indicating the decretal amount was also rejected. The Court noted that the sale proclamation is drawn up by the execution court based on information supplied by the decree-holder. The responsibility for any mistake in the calculation of the decretal amount lies with the decree-holder, not the Court. The decree-holder cannot claim to be misled by any mistake of the Court in the specification of the amount.

5. Appropriate relief and restoration of possession:
The Supreme Court considered the fact that the appellant has been in possession of the land since 4.5.1987 and enjoyed its usufruct despite the High Court's stay order. The High Court had clearly stated that the entire decretal amount had been deposited by the judgment-debtor. The Supreme Court directed the following:
1. The decretal amount deposited by the judgment-debtor in the Court shall be paid to the appellant decree-holder.
2. One-half of the total amount deposited by the appellant in the Court in accordance with the order dated 6.8.1991, together with the accretions, must be paid to the judgment-debtor, while the remaining one-half shall be refunded to the appellant.
3. The executing court should proceed forthwith to restore possession of the property to the judgment-debtor.
4. The appellant must pay the amount due up to the date of restoration of possession according to the interim order dated 6.8.1991, to be disbursed as indicated.
5. On compliance with these directions, the executing court is to record full satisfaction of the decree and strike off the execution.

The appeal was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the mandatory nature of Order XXI Rule 85 and the consequences of non-compliance. The Court directed appropriate relief and restoration of possession to the judgment-debtor, while ensuring the appellant received the decretal amount and part of the deposits made.