2010 Supreme(SC) 832

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
Maya Devi (dead) through Lrs.
Versus
Smt. Raj Kumari Batra (dead) through Lrs. & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10249 OF 2003
Decided on : 08-09-2010

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Validity of confirmation of sale in favour of the decree holder and the issue of sale certificate in her favour – Finally determined against appellants up to Supreme Court in the first round – Cannot be re-agitated. (Para 8, 9)

       AIR 1954 SC 349 – Relied upon

       (1994) 1 SCC 131; (2008) 13 SCC 113; 1989 (Suppl.) 2 SCC 693; (1994) 1 SCC 1; (1988) 2 SCC 602 – Distinguished

       (b) Administration of Justice – Judicial propriety – Assigning reasons – Courts and statutory or other authorities exercising quasi judicial functions – Must assign reasons – Reasons promote fairness, induce transparency and aid equity. (Para 14 to 16)

       (1998) 2 SCC 242; (1986) 3 SCC 696; (2007) 10 SCC 712; (2010) 3 SCC 732; (2009) 3 SCC 258; (2008) 5 SCC 539 – Relied upon

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 226 r/w Letters Patent – Judicial review – Writ court dismissing petition in limine without assigning reasons – Appellate court normally should remit the matter – Owing to prolonged litigation for many years, appellate court deciding the matter on merits – No infirmity. (Para 17)

       Facts of the case:

       What is striking about this case is that a decree passed in favour of the respondent as far back as on 25th October, 1976 remains to be executed even after the lapse of 34 years during which period the decree holder as also the judgment debtor have both passed away leaving behind the legacy of litigation to the next generation. The chequered history of a bitter fight which has brought the parties to Supreme Court for the second time amply demonstrates that the real troubles of a plaintiff start only after he obtains a decree, thanks to the long winding legal procedure and the ingenuity of the lawyers who often exploit the same to the benefit of one party at the cost of the other.

       A suit filed by Late Maya Devi the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.60,000/-was decreed in her favour with costs by the Trial Court on 25th October, 1976 against Hans Raj, defendant now deceased. In execution of the said decree SCF No.9, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh was attached and finally sold in a public auction on 17th April, 1978, for a sum of Rs.82,000/- in favour of the decree holder who was permitted by the Executing Court to participate in the auction. The judgment debtor filed his objections challenging the legality of the auction, but while the same were pending consideration, the parties put in a written compromise on 16th June, 1979 which, inter alia, provided that the decree holder would deposit a sum of Rs.35,000/-for payment to the judgment debtor, whereupon the latter shall handover to the decree holder the vacant possession of the property aforementioned that stood attached.

       The Executing Court finally made an order on 30th August 1979 whereby it confirmed the sale in favour of the decree holder in accordance with the compromise between the parties. Aggrieved, the judgment debtor filed FAO before the High Court. The appeal failed. The High Court further held that the sale in favour of the decree holder was not in violation of the provisions of Order XXI, Rules 84 and 85 of CPC. A Letters Patent Appeal filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge also failed. A Special Leave Petition against the said two orders was dismissed on 5th January, 1982 thereby bringing finality to the question of legality of the sale of the property in favour of the decree holder on the basis of the compromise/adjustment arrived at between the parties.

       The judgment debtor then filed fresh objections before the Executing Court, inter alia, contending that the property was exempt from attachment and sale, the same being a residential premises and the decree in question being a simple money decree. The decree holder also moved an application for restoration of the execution proceedings which had been adjourned sine die and the execution file consigned to record, on account of stay issued by the High Court in the earlier proceedings. The Executing Court held that the confirmation of sale and issue of the sale certificate in favour of the decree holder was legal and valid and that the decree holder was entitled to possession of the property sold in her favour. Resultantly, the Executing Court issued warrants for delivery of possession of the property in question in favour of the decree holder.

       The delivery of possession was for the third time resisted by the judgment debtor on the ground that there was no decree for possession. The Executing Court noted that the issues raised by the judgment debtor had already been decided against him by the earlier orders of the Executing Court dated 30th August, 1979 and 25th September, 1984 which orders had attained finality. It also held that application dated 22nd January, 1985 under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC having been filed by the decree holder within the stipulated period of 30 days from the date of resistance to the delivery of possession was maintainable. The above order was assailed by the judgment debtor in Execution First Appeal which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 26th September, 1988. A Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the said order also failed and was dismissed on 5th October, 2001.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

       Result:

       Appeal dismissed.