9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , by Section 88 of the Act. Therefore, the action of the concerned authority in accepting the balance money on 2nd March, 1965 long after the period prescribed by Section 88 of the Act had expired was an act without jurisdiction and of no avail. So also the confirmation of sale on 21st March, 1966 was without jurisdiction and must be ignored. If that is the true position in law, there can be so doubt that there was no sale in the eye of the law in favour of the appellants herein and, therefore, the threatened action of the appellants to dispossess the landowner was clearly de hors the Act and could validity be challenged in a civil court. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the view which found favour with the High Court. Appeal dismissed. - C.A. 134 of 1976 - - - Dated:- 23-8-1990 - AHMADI, A.M., RAMASWAMI, V. REDDY AND K. JAYACHANDRA, JJ. JUDGMENT A.M. Ahmadi, J. The appellants before us are original defendant No. 2, since deceased through his legal representatives, and defendant No. 3 of suit No. 160 of 1966 filed in the Court of Sub-Judge, Ferozepur. The facts leading to this appeal are that one Narain Singh was the Lambardar of Village Hazara Singh Wal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not conducted in accordance with law and abounded in several illegalities; that even otherwise the sale was void and the issuance of sale certificate was of no consequence whatsoever and that no title in the auctioned land passed to the purchasers thereunder. The suit was contested mainly on the ground that the plaintiff was a 'defaulter' within the meaning of Section 3(8) of the Act; that the sale was conducted in accordance with law and the auction-purchasers had, on the issuance of the sale certificate, become owners of the auctioned land; that in view of Section 158 of the Act the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. The Trial Judge raised as many as seven issues and on the basis of the findings recorded he dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff was duly appointed as a substitute Lambardar whose duty it was to collect the land revenue and deposit the same in. the State Treasury; he having failed to do so was a defaulter under Section 3(8) of the Act and the State Government was entitled to attach and sell his land to recover the arrears of land revenue due from him. He a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. Consequently it concluded that the sale was void and the civil court, therefore, had jurisdiction, notwithstanding Section 158 of the Act. It also held that the failure on the part of the auction-purchasers to deposit the balance (75%) of the sale price within 15 days allowed by Section 88 of the Act rendered the sale void in view of the decision of this Court in Manilal Mohanlal Shah and Ors. v. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahamad and Anr. and, therefore, the civil court had jurisdiction in the matter. In this view that it took, the appeal was dismissed. The auction-purchasers, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the High Court, have, after obtaining special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution, questioned the decision of the High Court as well as the First Appellate Court. The three contentions which were urged before the High Court were reiterated before us. In the view that we propose to takes on the second and third contentions we do not consider it necessary to examine the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the two appellate courts on the interpretation of Section 3(8) and the related provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efault of payment as required by Section 88 of the Act. Support to this view was drawn by the High Court from the decision of this Court in Manila Mohanlal's case (supra) wherein this Court after examining the provisions of Order XXI Rules 84 and 85 of the CPC, which are analogous to Sections 85, 86 and 88 of the Act, concluded that the failure to pay the balance amount within the prescribed time rendered the auction-sale void. That was a case in which execution of a decree certain properties of the Judgment-debtor were auctioned. On an application made under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC for setting aside the same, it was alleged that the sale was rendered a nullity as the auction-purchaser had neither made the initial deposit as required by Rule 84 nor paid the balance of the purchase price as required by Rule 86 of Order XXI of the Code. The sale was set aside on the ground that the provisions of the said rules had not been complied with, in that, the price was not deposited as required by the said provisions and instead a set-off was wrongly claimed and allowed in the absence of the judgment-debtor which the Court had no authority or jurisdiction to do. The High Court dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puts it: The provisions leave no doubt that unless the deposit and the payment are made as required by the mandatory provisions of the rules, there is no sale in the eye of law in favour of the defaulting purchaser and no right to own and possess the property accrues to him. It is clear from this decision that the requirement of deposit contained in Sections 84, 86 and 88 of the Act, which are substantially the same as Order XXI Rules 84 and 85 of the Code, are mandatory and failure to comply with either of them renders the sale non-cst. Once the effect of non-payment of the amount is to render the sale non-existent, it becomes the imperative duty of the authority to re-sell the property as the purchaser forfeits all claim to the property for default of payment. Where there is no sale in the eye of law, there can be no question of applying for setting aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity under Section 91 of the Act which is analogous to Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code. Non-payment of the balance amount had the effect of rendering the entire sale null and void. There can be no doubt that no right, title or interest passed to the auction-purchasers under the sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In order to protect his possession the land owner was, therefore, entitled to sue the auction-purchasers who were seeking to dispossess him on the strength of a document which had no efficacy in law. This is not a case of the land owner seeking to set aside the sale under Section 91 of the Act, since it was not necessary for him to apply for setting aside the sale as there existed no sale. It was, therefore, open to the land owner to approach the civil court to protect his possession as the same was threatened. Such a suit, therefore, does not attract the provisions of Section 158(2) on which reliance is placed. The High Court, therefore, rightly observed as under: As his property had been sold by the revenue authorities without jurisdiction he had the right to file the suit in the civil court and which had the jurisdiction to decide the matter. It is an established principle of law that if the act of the parties under any Act is without jurisdiction, then the jurisdiction of the civil court is not excluded. We respectfully agree with the above observation. Once it is held that the sale was rendered null and void on the failure of the auction-purchasers to comply w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
