9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the sale of disputed property in a Court sale. 2. Application to set aside the auction sale under Order XXI Rule 90. 3. Compliance with legal procedures in conducting the sale. 4. Setting aside of the sale by the High Court. 5. Interpretation of Order XXI Rule 90 regarding substantial injury. 6. Allegations of fraud or material irregularity in the sale process. Analysis: 1. The appellant purchased a property in a Court sale, which was later set aside by the High Court. The disputed property was originally part of a suit for partition, deemed not partible by the Trial Court, leading to the sale directed by an Advocate Commissioner. The sale process involved public notices, auction participation, and bid submissions. 2. An application under Order XXI Rule 90 was filed to set aside the auction sale, citing irregularities and proposing a higher offer by a third party. Despite opportunities, the alleged purchaser failed to appear in court, leading to the Trial Court confirming the sale in favor of the appellant. 3. The High Court set aside the sale, questioning the notice provisions and publicity of the sale as per legal requirements. The Court noted the offer of a higher bid but found no valid reason to reject it. The appellant contested the High Court's decision, emphasizing compliance with the sale procedures and lack of substantial evidence for setting aside the sale. 4. The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Order XXI Rule 90, emphasizing the need to prove substantial injury due to irregularities or fraud in the sale process. The Court highlighted the requirement for specific allegations with supporting evidence, which were lacking in this case. The Court found no material irregularity in conducting the sale and upheld the Trial Court's decision. 5. The respondent failed to establish substantial injury resulting from any irregularity or fraud in the sale process. The lack of notice under the Partition Act was deemed immaterial, as the respondent did not express intent to purchase the property. The appellant's offer exceeded the market value, and the alleged higher bid offer lacked supporting evidence, leading the Court to reject it. 6. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in setting aside the sale, finding the decision unsustainable in fact and law. The sale was confirmed in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence to support claims of fraud or irregularities. The appeal was allowed, overturning the High Court's decision.
|
