SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 490

2008(2) Supreme 655
Supreme Court of india
(From Madras High Court)
S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
Kancherla Lakshminarayana — Petitioner
versus
Mattaparthi Syamala & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 2001 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9102 of 2007)
Decided on : 14-03-2008

important Point
The agreement for sale creates an obligation attached to the ownership of property.

Headnote:(a)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI, rule 58 – The agreement for sale creates an obligation attached to the ownership of property – Since the attaching creditor is entitled to attach only the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor, the attachment cannot be free from the obligations incurred under the contract for sale. (Para 9)

       (1990) 3 SCC 291 – Relied upon.

       AIR 1941 Bom. 198; AIR 1943 Bom 145; AIR 1952 TC 467 – Held to be good law.

       AIR (1983) A.P. 335; AIR 1931 Mad 782 – Approved.

       AIR 1962 Patna 403; AIR 1937 Cal 390; AIR 1924 Patna 76 – Distinguished.

       (b)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI, rule 58 r/w section 65 – Section 65 would not, by itself, provide any guidance regarding the interpretation of the term “sold” in the proviso to Rule 58. (Para 12)

       AIR 1983 Patna 303 – Distinguished.

       (c)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI, rule 58 – In view of the admitted agreement of sale, pending adjudication of whether the same was good or not, there was a cloud on the property – Appellant cannot be said to be an utter outsider having no locus standi to take objections. (Para 14)

       (1994) 1 SCC 131 – Relied upon.

       AIR 1973 Cal. 432 – Approved.

       Facts of the case:

       1.Second Respondent herein owned 14 acres of land. He executed an Agreement of Sale for 14 acres in favour of the appellant on 20th March, 1993 after having received a sum of Rs.1 lakh from the appellant. The appellant thereafter paid Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.20,000/- which payments were endorsed on the reverse side of the Agreement by the Second Respondent. However, the Second Respondent failed to execute the registered Sale Deed inspite of several requests.

       2.The present appellant therefore filed Original Suit No.605 of 1996 before the Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry for specific performance of the Sale Agreement which is still pending.

       3.In the year 2000, the first respondent, the wife of the second respondent, filed a maintenance case being OP No. 34 of 2000 before the Family Court, Yanam. She filed one IA No.582 of 2000 seeking an injunction restraining the second respondent from alienating the schedule properties. This application was granted on 17.2.2000.

       4.Thereafter this suit was decreed on 22.1.2002. Execution Petition No.10 of 2002 came to be filed on the basis of the decree passed in OS No.63 of 2000 for recovery of arrears of maintenance payable by the second respondent to the first respondent.

       5.A public auction was conducted on 2.7.2003 in which the third respondent herein purchased the said suit property.

       6.The present appellant, therefore, filed a petition in E.P. No.15 of 2002 in OS No.63 of 2000 raising objections to the said auction and to declare that the sale is subject to the appellant’s claim in OS No.31 of 2000 which was pending on the file of Sub Court, Yanam.

       7.The said application came to be dismissed by the Subordinate Court. The appellant herein filed an appeal against the said order of dismissal dated 9.9.2004. However, by its order dated 16.3.2007, the High Court of Madras dismissed the same holding that the application was not maintainable.

       Findings of the Court :

       Appellant has locus standi to object to the confirmation of the auction sale.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

judgment

V.S. Sirpurkar, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.The dismissal judgment of the Madras High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the appellant herein, is in challenge before us. This appeal was filed against the order dated 9.9.2004 passed by Subordinate Judge, Yanam in Execution Application No.9 of 2003 in Execution Petition No.15 of 2002. The said Execution Application was filed under Order XXI Rule 58 whereby the appellant sought to make a prayer for raising the attachment on the suit property or in the alternative to declare the sale being subject to the claim in Original Suit being OS No.31 of 2000. The following facts will highlight the controversy.

3.Second Respondent herein, namely, Mattaparthi Satyam owned 14 acres of land. He put up the said land for sale and the present appellant having offered highest market value of Rs.29,000/- per acre, executed an Agreement of Sale for 14 acres in favour of the appellant on 20th March, 1993 after having received a sum of Rs.1 lakh from the appellant. The appellant thereafter paid Rs.2 lakhs on 27.3.1993 and Rs.20,000/- on 16.4.1993 which payments were endorsed on the reverse side of the Agreement by the Second Respondent. However, the Second Respondent failed to execute the registered Sale Deed inspite of several requests and, therefore, the present appellant filed Original Suit No.605 of 1996 before the Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry for specific performance of the Sale Agreement which suit was later on transferred to Sub Court, Yanam and was renumbered as Original Suit No.31 of 2000. The said suit is still pending.

4.In the year 2000, the first respondent, who is none else but the wife of the second respondent filed a maintenance case being OP No.34 of 2000 before the Family Court, Yanam. She filed one IA No.582 of 2000 seeking an injunction restraining the second respondent from alienating the schedule properties and this application was granted on 17.2.2000. This petition was also transferred to the Sub Court Yanam and was re-numbered as OS No.63 of 2000. Thereafter this suit was decreed on 22.1.2002. Execution Petition No.10 of 2002 came to be filed on the basis of the decree passed in OS No.63 of 2000 for recovery of arrears of maintenance payable by the second respondent to the first respondent. The second respondent did not pay the arrears of maintenance but instead filed IA No.4 of 2003 in OS No.63 of 2000 before Sub Court, Yanam to set aside the above decree dated 22.1.2002. However, even this application was dismissed on merits on 27.2.2003. The first respondent thereafter filed E.P. No.15 of 2002 before Sub Court, Yanam for execution of the decree dated 22.1.2002 passed in OS No.63 of 2000. A public auction was ordered in that Execution Application and the same was conducted on 2.7.2003 in which public auction the third respondent herein purchased the said suit property. The present appellant, therefore, filed a petition in E.P. No.15 of 2002 in OS No.63 of 2000 under the provisions of Order XXI Rule 58, raising objections to the said auction and to declare that the sale is subject to the appellant’s claim in OS No. 31 of 2000 which was pending on the file of Sub Court, Yanam. This application was numbered as Execution Application No.9 of 2003. The said application came to be dismissed by the Subordinate Court. The appellant herein filed an appeal against the said order of dismissal dated 9.9.2004. However, by its order dated 16.3.2007, the High Court of Madras dismissed CMA 3254 of 2004 holding that the application was not maintainable. The logic of the Madras High Court as well as the Trial Court seems to be that once the sale takes place during the execution, then the objection raised would be of no consequence and the application will be untenable. The High Court has thus considered the question of the stage at which the objection could be raised and has dealt with that such objection would not be tenable o








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top