9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Order 21, Rules 94 and 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the requirement of a certificate for possession of property. 2. Application of Article 180 of the Limitation Act in cases of possession after a property sale. 3. The significance of a certificate of sale in Court auctions and its relation to the vesting of property in the purchaser. 4. The role of a certificate as evidence of title and its relation to the provisions of the Limitation Act. Analysis: 1. The case involved a dispute regarding the necessity of a certificate under Order 21, Rules 94 and 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the Respondent to apply for possession of a property sold in execution of a decree. The contention was that without the certificate, the application for possession should have been dismissed. The Respondent applied for the certificate more than three years after the sale became absolute, raising questions about the competence to seek possession without the certificate. 2. The judgment analyzed the application of Article 180 of the Limitation Act, which governs the matter. The article refers to 'a purchaser' without specifying the need for a certificate. The key issue was whether a purchaser without a certificate is incompetent to apply for possession or if the Court must dismiss the application unless a certificate is produced within the limitation period. 3. The Court delved into the rights of a purchaser in a Court sale, emphasizing that the property vests in the purchaser from the time of sale, not when the sale becomes absolute. The interrelation of Order 21, Rules 90-96, and Section 65 of the Code was highlighted to explain the vesting of property in an auction-purchaser. The judgment clarified that the certificate of sale is evidence of title, not a title deed, and its issuance does not affect the limitation for applying for possession. 4. It was established that the certificate's issuance does not determine the competence or timing of an application for possession under Article 180. The Court emphasized that the application in the present case met the requirements of the Limitation Act and could not be dismissed on limitation grounds. The delay in issuing the certificate did not impact the validity of the application, as the evidence of title could be provided later. Ultimately, the Court upheld the correctness of the order and dismissed the appeal with costs.
|
