1991 (7) TMI 389 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the sale certificate issued to Mahila Vidyalaya.
2. Jurisdiction of the executing court to issue the sale certificate.
3. Limitation period for challenging the sale certificate.
4. Status of Mahila Vidyalaya as a trespasser or rightful owner.
5. Effect of previous litigation on the current suit.
6. Confirmation of sale and its implications on ownership.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Sale Certificate Issued to Mahila Vidyalaya:

The High Court held that as Gopal Rao Mutatkar was the auction purchaser, no sale certificate could be issued by the executing court in favor of the appellant Mahila Vidyalaya. The High Court affirmed the finding that Gopal Rao Mutatkar did not purchase the property in the auction acting on behalf of the appellant. However, the Supreme Court found that an application was submitted on behalf of Mahila Vidyalaya on 5th January 1944, stating that the house was purchased for Mahila Vidyalaya, which was accepted by the executing court on 26th February 1944. Therefore, the sale certificate was issued validly in favor of Mahila Vidyalaya on 8th April 1944.

2. Jurisdiction of the Executing Court to Issue the Sale Certificate:

The High Court considered the act of the executing court in issuing the sale certificate to Mahila Vidyalaya as without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the executing court had jurisdiction to allow or reject the application for the sale certificate. The Supreme Court emphasized that the order dated 26th February 1944, directing the issuance of the sale certificate to Mahila Vidyalaya, was within the executing court's jurisdiction and could not be considered void.

3. Limitation Period for Challenging the Sale Certificate:

The High Court held that the suit filed on 26th November 1960 was within time. The Supreme Court, however, found that the suit challenging the sale certificate issued on 8th April 1944 was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court noted that even under the residuary Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the suit should have been filed within six years, making the present suit filed after 16 years hopelessly barred by time.

4. Status of Mahila Vidyalaya as a Trespasser or Rightful Owner:

The High Court erroneously held that Mahila Vidyalaya was a trespasser and that Govind Rao Harshe was the true owner. The Supreme Court clarified that once the sale was confirmed in favor of Gopal Rao Mutatkar on 10th April 1943, the title vested in the auction purchaser, and Govind Rao Harshe had no right or title in the property. The Supreme Court concluded that Mahila Vidyalaya, having been issued the sale certificate and having taken possession, could not be considered a trespasser.

5. Effect of Previous Litigation on the Current Suit:

The Supreme Court highlighted that previous litigation, including a suit filed by Govind Rao Harshe's sons in 1948 and various execution proceedings, had all terminated against them. The Supreme Court emphasized that no objection was raised regarding the sale certificate during these earlier proceedings, and the present challenge was an afterthought.

6. Confirmation of Sale and Its Implications on Ownership:

The Supreme Court reiterated that the confirmation of the sale under Order XXI Rule 92 CPC on 10th April 1943, vested the title in Gopal Rao Mutatkar, which related back to the date of sale on 20th August 1942. The Supreme Court emphasized that the sale certificate issued under Order XXI Rule 94 CPC was a ministerial act and not judicial, and the title vested in the auction purchaser upon confirmation of the sale.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 12th December 1974, and dismissed the suit with costs. The Supreme Court held that the sale certificate issued to Mahila Vidyalaya was valid, the executing court had jurisdiction, the suit was barred by limitation, and Mahila Vidyalaya was the rightful owner, not a trespasser.