1. Purchase of property in court auction sale — issuance of sale certificate — delivery of possession — assignment to plaintiff — suit for perpetual injunction. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 2046
1997(1) Supreme 210
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Nellikkottu Kolleriyil Madhavi -Appellant
versus
Kavakkalathil Kalikutty & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 15612 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9420 of 1993)
Decided on 29-11-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : K. Sukumaran, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Baby Krishnan and N. Sudhakaran, Advocates.
For the Respondents : M.P. Vinod, Advocate.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Non-consideration of material evidence is a substantial question of law.
Non-consideration of material evidence is a substantial question of law.
Subject
Property Law - Sale of Property
Act Referred
Headnote
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW-Suit for injunction-Suit property was purchased in execution of decree-Sale certificate was executed and possession was delivered and it was assigned to plaintiff-Non-consideration of material evidence was a substantial question of law-Perpetual injunction granted by High Court in second appeal was not vitiated by any error of law-Appellant if claimed any title independent of that, he could have the right established in accordance with law. (Paras 2 & 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with possession based on the court-auction purchase and delivery. (Para 2 )
3. The High Court correctly found that the lower courts failed to consider material evidence regarding the sale certificate and delivery of possession in the proper perspective. (Para 2 )
4. A purchaser in a court auction sale acquires title via the sale certificate and lawfully obtains possession upon confirmation and delivery of the property. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal dismissed; perpetual injunction granted by the High Court upheld. (Para 3 )
6. How does a purchaser in a court auction sale acquire title and possession of the property?
A person who purchases property in a court auction sale acquires title to the property through the sale certificate issued by the court and obtains possession after the sale is confirmed. (Para 2 )
7. Does the non-consideration of material evidence by lower courts constitute a substantial question of law?
Yes, the non-consideration of material evidence is regarded as a substantial question of law, which may warrant interference by the High Court in a second appeal. (Para 2 )
ORDER
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of the Kerala High Court dated May 24, 1993, made in SA No. 368 of 1989. The respondents had purchased the Plaint Schedule property in execution of the decrees in OS No. 262/1955 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff, Parappanangadi. The sale certificate, Exh.A-2 dated January 28, 1958 was given to the respondents. They had also filed an application for delivery of possession of the property which had come to be delivered under Ex.A-3 dated 21.7.1961. After taking delivery of the possession on October 20, 1961, they assigned the Plaint Schedule property to the plaintiff. Under those circumstances, the question arises : whether they are entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with his possession ? Though the trial Court and the appellate Court had accepted the case of the appellant, the High Court has pointed out that aforesaid documents are material for deciding the controversy and the courts below had not considered those documents in proper perspective. Accordingly, in second appeal, the High Court has gone into that question. It is settled law that the person who purchases the property in a court auction sale, gets title to the property by sale certificate issued by the court as true owner and after confirmation of the sale, he gets possession thereof. In view of the fact that Plaint Schedule property was delivered to Sankaran under Ex.A-3 on July 21, 1961, he lawfully came into possession and the same was delivered in turn to the plaintiffs. Non-consideration of the material evidence is a substantial question of law.
3. Under these circumstances, the perpetual injunction granted by the High Court in the second appeal is not vitiated by any error of law much less substantial question of law warranting interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. If the appellant has got any title independent of this, it is open to him to have the right established in accordance with law.
Appeal dismissed.
*******
