9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reliminary decree was passed by the court in his favour. Thereafter, the plaintiff/second respondent made an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for effect partition, which was allowed. The Commissioner becoming seisin of the matter, reported to the trial court that the house was not partible and resort be had to a sale thereof so that the sale proceeds can be apportioned amongst the co-sharers. A public auction was thus on permission conducted by the Commissioner, whereby the sale was knocked down in favour of the first respondent, Pattam Sardar Khan; no other than the son of the plaintiff, at a price of ₹ 17,000. No objection of any sort from any quarter was raised against the sale or the conduct thereof. The sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed, does not start until the matter stands concluded finally against the judgment-debtor, as well as until the sale certificate is issued to the auction-purchaser, after the dismissal of all objections in the appellate stages, and that the limitation under Article 180 (now, Article 134 in the limitation Act) would run from the date of the issuance of the sale certificate. But, the High Court has, in our view committed an error in reading the Privy Council decision in that manner, as would presently be seen. It is evident from the aforementioned Privy Council case that there were two mortgage decrees and towards execution both the properties covered therein were sold, which were purchased by the appellants therein. The objections raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sales effective and absolute. On this premise, the Privy Council expressed itself in the following words: Upon consideration of the Sections and orders of the Code, their Lordships are of opinion that in construing the meaning of the words when the sale becomes absolute in Article 180, Limitation Act, regard must be had not only to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 92(1) of the schedule to the Civil Procedure Code, but also to the other material sections and orders of the Code, including those which relate to appeals from order made under Order 21, Rule 92(1). The result is that where there is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge, disallowing the application to set aside the sale, the sale will not become absolute within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comes absolute, that clause must be read not only with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 92(1) CPC, but also with the other material sections and orders of the Court as had been authoritatively enunciated by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Chandra Mani Saha and Ors. v. Anarjan Bibi and Ors. This Court in Rama Krishna Rao v. Challayamma AIR (1953) SC 425, has also followed and approved Chandra Mani Saha's case of the Privy Council, ruling as follows: Where a Subordinate Judge has disallowed an application under Order 21, Rule 90, to set aside a sale in execution, and has made an order under Rule 92(1) confirming the sale, and an appeal from disallowance has been dismissed by the High Court, the three years' period provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it does not become absolute until sometime after the sale; a period of at least 30 days must expire from the date of sale before the sale can become absolute. In that while, the sale is susceptible of being set aside at the instance of the judgment-debtor on the ground of irregularity in publication or conduct of the sale or on defalcation as regards deposit of money etc, as envisaged in Rules 89 and 90 of Order 21. Where no such application is made, as is the case here, the Court was required, as indeed it did, to make an order, confirming the sale and it is upon such confirmation that the sale becomes, and became, absolute in terms of Orders 21 Rule 92. After the sale had become absolute, a certificate is required to be granted by the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese matters are with the same Court. The starting point of limitation for the application being the date when the sale becomes absolute i.e. the date on which title passed, the evidence of title, in the form of sale certificate, due from the Court, could always he supplied later to the Court to satisfy the requirements of Order 21 Rule 95. See in this regard Babulal v. Annapurnabai AIR (1953) Nag 215, which is a pointer. It therefore becomes clear that the title of the Court auction-purchaser becomes complete on the confirmation of the sale under Order 21, Rule 92, and by virtue of the thrust of Section 65 CPC, the property vests in the purchaser from the date of sale; the certificate of sale, by itself, not creating any title but merely ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
