9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of court sale in regard to an immovable property. Analysis: 1. The appeal concerns the validity of a court sale involving an immovable property. The petitioner, an auction purchaser, acquired a house property through a court sale on 31st July 1978. The sale was confirmed later the same day upon full payment. Subsequently, the respondents filed an application to set aside the sale, which was rejected by the District Munsif. The High Court granted an interim stay on further proceedings, and eventually allowed the Revision Petition filed by the respondents, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court. 2. The key legal provision under consideration is Order 21 Rule 90, which outlines the grounds for setting aside a sale of immovable property. The rule specifies that a sale shall not be set aside due to irregularity or fraud unless substantial injury is proven. It also restricts the entertainment of applications based on grounds that could have been raised earlier. The explanation clarifies that the absence or defect in property attachment alone is not sufficient to set aside a sale. 3. The Supreme Court highlighted three crucial factors in setting aside a sale: material irregularity and fraud, proof of substantial injury, and the timing of raising objections. The judgment emphasized the importance of intentional relinquishment of rights akin to constructive res judicata principles under Section 11 of the Code. 4. The Court referenced a prior decision to support the contention that the Judgment-Debtor's presence during the auction and their involvement in the application under Order 21 Rule 90 were significant. It was noted that the sale could only be challenged based on material irregularity or fraud, not on issues like saleable interest, which could only be contested by the purchaser. 5. The judgment scrutinized the High Court's order and highlighted errors in the application of legal principles. The Court emphasized that challenges to a sale should be based on specified grounds of irregularity or fraud, not on issues like salability or price adequacy. The Court also clarified the maintainability of a revision application under Section 115 of the Code against non-appealable orders. 6. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Single Judge and the review petition. The Court confirmed the validity of the Executing Court's order from 31st August 1978. Considering the possession of the property by the purchaser, no further directives were issued, and no costs were awarded.
|
