9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Validity of the final decree and sale of property - Jurisdiction of the executing Court - Challenge to the order for sale and possession Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses two execution section appeals filed against the orders of the execution court dismissing objections to the sale of property and delivery of possession. The appeals were filed by Shahabia Begum and Sharfuddin against the dismissal of their objections by the Additional District Judge. 2. Shahabia Begum and Sharfuddin were parties in a partition suit where a final decree was passed for the sale of a property. Subsequently, objections were raised regarding the jurisdiction of the sale due to the final decree not being engrossed on proper stamp paper. The objections were dismissed, leading to the appeals. 3. The contention raised was that the final decree, being an instrument of partition, should have been engrossed on proper stamp paper. The sale of the property and related proceedings were argued to be without jurisdiction due to the stamping issue. Objections to the sale were filed but dismissed by the executing Court. 4. The argument presented was that the final decree directing the sale and distribution of sale proceeds constituted an instrument of partition, thus requiring proper stamping. The executing Court's action in proceeding with the sale without proper stamping was deemed as an action without jurisdiction. 5. The respondent contended that the final decree did not necessitate partition as the property was to be auctioned without division. However, the judgment emphasized that the sale and distribution of proceeds were methods of effecting partition, making the final decree an instrument of partition subject to stamp duty. 6. The judgment referred to legal precedents highlighting that a decree passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged at any stage, including in execution proceedings. The executing Court's action based on an invalid decree was considered without jurisdiction and set aside. 7. The appeals were accepted, and the orders dismissing objections were set aside. The entire auction proceedings were deemed without jurisdiction, leading to the cancellation of the sale certificate and warrant of possession. Each party was directed to bear their own costs, and the appeals were allowed.
|
