9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Objection to the execution of the decree based on the compromise agreement. 2. Application of the doctrine of marshalling of security. 3. Effect of the Bihar Land Reforms Act on the execution proceedings. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Objection to the Execution of the Decree Based on the Compromise Agreement: The appellants contended that the compromise between Kayastha Pathsala and the decree-holders was not binding on them since they were not parties to the agreement. They argued that the executing court should first proceed against the remaining mortgaged properties before selling the portion they had purchased. The Subordinate Judge dismissed this objection, stating that the decree-holders were entitled to proceed against any of the mortgaged properties for the unsatisfied portion of the decree, irrespective of the compromise agreement. The court held that the appellants had no right to object to the execution of the decree by the sale of the property they had purchased. 2. Application of the Doctrine of Marshalling of Security: The appellants' contention was based on a misunderstanding of the law of marshalling of security. The doctrine, as defined in Wharton's Law Lexicon, states that a person with two funds to satisfy his demands should not prejudice another person with only one fund. This principle is codified in Sections 56 and 81 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, the court noted that this right is subject to the equities of the parties and should not prejudice the rights of the prior mortgagee or any other person with an interest in the properties. The court has the power under Order 34, Rules 4 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Code to direct the order of sale of mortgaged properties, but this power must be exercised judicially to balance equities and prevent prejudice to the mortgagee. The court concluded that the appellants had no right to demand the sale of other properties first and upheld the Subordinate Judge's decision. 3. Effect of the Bihar Land Reforms Act on the Execution Proceedings: During the pendency of the appeal, the mortgaged properties vested in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The appellants argued that under Section 4(d) and (e) of the Act, the execution proceeding was incompetent and should be quashed. Section 4(d) prohibits suits for the recovery of money secured by a mortgage on such properties and mandates that pending proceedings be dropped. Section 4(e) prohibits the attachment or sale of such properties under any court process. The court noted that the sale had not been confirmed and thus was incomplete. The auction purchaser does not acquire an indefeasible title until the sale is confirmed, as per Section 65 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court held that the execution proceeding was still pending and must be dropped under Section 4(d). Additionally, the court lacked jurisdiction to confirm the sale under Section 4(e). The court cited precedents to support its view that confirmation of sale is an integral part of the transaction and that the jurisdiction of the court is ousted after the vesting of the property in the State. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the execution proceeding was dropped. The court ruled that the appellants' objections based on the compromise agreement and the doctrine of marshalling were unfounded. However, the execution proceeding was deemed incompetent due to the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. There was no order for costs. Separate Judgment: Ramaswami, C.J., concurred with the judgment and agreed with the conclusions reached.
|
