9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the alleged Panchayat agreement between the petitioner, decree-holder, and mortgagee. 2. Application of Section 18 of the Limitation Act to set aside the sale based on fraud. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought to set aside a sale beyond the 30-day limit, claiming an agreement reached in a Panchayat where it was agreed that a third party would purchase the properties. The lower court rejected this claim, concluding the alleged Panchayat was fabricated to invoke Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The judge agreed with this assessment, stating the Panchayat was concocted to delay the sale's execution. The court found against the petitioner on this point, emphasizing the lack of credibility in the Panchayat story. 2. Section 18 of the Limitation Act allows for an extension of time in cases of fraud preventing the knowledge of one's right to sue. The judge outlined the requirements to invoke this section, emphasizing the need to establish fraud, lack of knowledge due to fraud, and the extension of time only against the party guilty of fraud. Fraud is defined as active deceit or intentional imposition to conceal one's right to sue. The judge highlighted the necessity of proving fraud clearly and specifically, cautioning against general allegations. The judgment clarified that the application of Section 18 extends the limitation period only against the party committing fraud, not innocent third parties. 3. The judgment referenced conflicting opinions on whether Section 18 applies when the auction purchaser, not the decree-holder, is guilty of fraud. A previous Bench decision resolved this by confirming that fraud by either the decree-holder or the auction purchaser can trigger Section 18 in an application to set aside a sale. Applying these principles to the case at hand, the judge found that the provisions of Section 18 were indeed applicable, leading to the dismissal of the Revision seeking to set aside the sale based on fraud. In conclusion, the judgment thoroughly analyzed the validity of the alleged Panchayat agreement and the application of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, ultimately dismissing the Revision based on the established legal principles and lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claims.
|
