IMPORTANT POINT
The title of the Court auction purchaser becomes complete on the confirmation of the sale under Order 21, Rule 92 of the Civil Procedure Code and, therefore, the starting point of limitation for the application under Order 21 Rule 95, seeking delivery of possession of the auctioned house, is the date when the sale becomes absolute and not when the sale certificate is issued.

Headnote:Limitation-Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order 21 Rule 95 r/ws 151-Application seeking delivery of possession of auctioned house-No objection raised against sale or conduct thereof-Limitation prescribed for application under Article 134, Limitation Act, 1963-Starting point of limitation for application being the date when sale becomes absolute-Evidence of title, in form of sale certificate could always be supplied later to court.
       Held 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 evidence thereof. The sale certificate rather is a formal acknowledgement of a fact already accomplished, stating as to what stood sold. Such act of the Court is prestinely a ministerial one and not judicial. It is in the nature of a formalisation of the obvious. (Para 8)
       Further held : Whether there be failure to issue the certificate or delay of action on behalf of the Court or the inaction of the purchaser in completing the legal requirement and formalities, are factors which have no bearing on the limitation prescribed for the application under Article 134. The purchaser cannot seek to extend the limitation on the ground that the certificate has not been issued. It is true though that order for delivery of possession cannot be passed unless sale certificate stands issued. It is manifest therefore that the issue of a sale certificate is not "sine qua non" of the application, since both these 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 be supplied later to the Court to satisfy the requirements of Order 21 Rule 95. (Para 8)
       Such being the state of law on the subject, we fail to see how the High Court could have come to the conclusion that even though the sale becomes absolute on confirmation under Order 21 Rule 92 CPC effectively passing title, the same can only be complete when evidenced by a sale certificate issued under Order 21 Rule 94, and that unless the sale certificate is issued, limitation cannot start for the purpose of an application under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC, vis-a-vis, Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court, in our view erred in holding that it is only from the date when a sale certificate is issued, that the limitation starts running. Such view of the High Court would not only cause violence to the clear provisions of Article 134 of the Limitation Act but have the effect of unsettling the law already settled. (Para 9)

Judgement Key Points

The judgment clarifies that the title of a court auction purchaser becomes complete upon the confirmation of the sale, which occurs under Order 21, Rule 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. Once the sale is confirmed, the property vests in the purchaser from the date of sale, and this is the point at which the sale becomes absolute. The issuance of a sale certificate is considered a formal, ministerial act that merely evidences this already completed transfer of title, and not a necessary condition for the sale to be deemed absolute or for limitation periods to commence.

The Court emphasizes that the starting point for limitation for applications seeking delivery of possession, under relevant procedural rules and limitations law, is the date when the sale becomes absolute, not the date when the sale certificate is issued. The delay or failure in issuing the sale certificate does not affect the limitation period, which is based on the date the sale is confirmed and the title passes. Therefore, an application for possession filed within the limitation period should not be barred solely because the sale certificate has not yet been issued.

The judgment further states that the issuance of the sale certificate is a ministerial act and does not create or alter the title; it is merely evidence of the transfer. The law aims to finalize proceedings swiftly, and the limitation period is designed to provide a quick remedy for the purchaser to seek possession, starting from the date the sale becomes absolute. If the limitation period expires, the purchaser's remedy is to file a suit for possession, not to seek possession through proceedings that are barred by limitation.

In conclusion, the Court set aside the orders of the High Court that delayed limitation from the date of issuance of the sale certificate and restored the order of the lower court, affirming that limitation begins from the date the sale becomes absolute, not from the date of the sale certificate issuance.

JUDGMENT

Punchhi, J.-Pattam Rasool, the second respondent herein, filed a suit before the Civil Court for partition and separate possession, claiming one sixth share in a residential house in the town of Nellore in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Pattam Khader Khan, the appellant herein, was one of the defendants therein. On January 7, 1977, a preliminary decree was passed by the Court in his favour. Thereafter, the plaintiffs/second respondent made an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for effecting 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 Rs. 17,000/-. No objection of any sort from any aquarter was raised against the sale or the conduct thereof. The sale was thus confirmed by the Court on 7.8.1984. A sale certificate was issued in favour of the auction-purchaser about five and quarter years later on 9.11.1989. The matter in this way stood finalised.

2. Having obtained the sale certificate, an application under Order 21 Rule 95 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was moved by the auction-purchaser first respondent on 9.11.1989, seeking delivery of possession of the auctioned house. An objection was raised thereto by the appellant stating that since the application of the first respondent was barred by the limitation prescribed under Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963, no order for delivery of possession could be given in favour of the first respondent. The executing Court of the District Munsif, Nellore, on 14.12.1990 sustained the objection regarding the bar of limitation, which made the first respondent move the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in revision. The High Court on 29.11.1993 allowed the revision petition of the first respondent, holding that he was entitled to take possession of the house purchased. Hence this appeal by the objector.

3. The fate of this appeal depends on the way in which the High Court has understood and applied the decision of the Privy Council in Chandra Mani Saha and Ors. v. Anarjan Bibi and Ors.1. The High Court has gathered therefrom that the period of limitation for filing an application by the auction purchaser, for delivery of possession of the property purchased, 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.

4. 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 thereto under Order 21 Rule 92(1) CPC were dismissed by the executing Court on April 15, 1924. The sales were confirmed by the executing Court on April 22, 1924. The appeals against orders dated 15.4.1924, disallowing objections, were preferred before the High Court on July 21, 1924. The High Court dismissed the appeals on March 17, 1927. Sales certificates were issued by the executing Court on May 19, 1928 and June 6, 1928 respectively. Applications for delivery of possession under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC were made by the appellants therein on September 10, 1928. The applications were within the prescribed period of limitation if computed from the da

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1040

Cases Referred (4)