( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises out of final decree proceedings in a suit for partition.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, respondents 14 and 15, by names, Pyari Bi and Sogra Bi are children of late Ameer Sab. Pyari Bi filed O. S. No. 94 of 1969, for partition of various items of the suit schedule properties on the death of Ameer Sab. A preliminary decree was passed way back on 2-12-1970 and the same became final. Thereafter, she filed LA. No. 471 of 1972 for passing final decree.

( 3 ) WHILE the partition of various items of the suit schedule did not pose any problem, it became difficult to divide the items 7 to 11 of the suit schedule properties. In that view of the matter, I. A. No. 504 of 1972 was filed to have recourse to the procedure under the Partition Act, 1893 (for short "the act" ). The I. A. , was allowed and the Advocate Commissioner was appointed for the purpose of conducting sale of those four items. In an auction conducted on 18-9-1972, the deceased 1st respondent-Mr. Abdul Khader emerged as the successful bidder for Items 7 and 11 and the 2nd respondent-Mr. V. S. Ansar Basa became the successful bidder for Items 8 and 10. They have deposited the entire sale consideration, and the sale in their favour was confirmed.

( 4 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 filed I. A. No. 109 of 1987, under Section 151 CPC, requesting the Court to execute the sale deeds, in respect of the properties purchased by them. The application was resisted by the petitioner herein, taking objection as to its maintainability. It was contended that the Court does not have the power to execute sale deeds for the sales effected under the Act. Exception was also taken to the provision under which the application was filed. A plea was raised to the effect that the sole plaintiff died and a perceptible change as to the shares of the parties had emerged, and in that view of the matter, the sale conducted by the Court became incompatible. The trial court rejected the contentions advanced by the petitioner and allowed the I. A. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.

( 5 ) SRI S. V. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that a perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act, the Civil Procedure Code and Civil Rules of Practice, discloses that it is not at all permissible for a court to execute a sale deed, in relation to sales of the properties under the Act. He submits that when it is impermissible to execute sale deed in the ordinary execution petitions in matters other than suits for specific performance, the question of the trial court executing the sale deeds in a suit for partition does not arise. He further submits that when the matter is governed by specific provisions, the application was not maintainable under Section 151 CPC. It is also pointed out that the death of the sole plaintiff and other defendant has brought about substantial factual and legal changes and that the further proceedings are impermissible at this stage.

( 6 ) MR. V. R. Reddy Kowuri, learned counsel for the auction purchasers, submits that the sale was conducted more than three decades ago and his clients are deprived of the benefits thereof though they parted with the entire consideration. He submits that having agreed for the sale for the items in question under the provisions of the Act, the parties to the suit failed to discharge their obligation in executing the sale deed. He submits that no exception can be taken to the order under revision.

( 7 ) FOUR items of the suit schedule property were brought to sale by invoking the provisions of the Act, in pursuance of the preliminary decree passed in the suit. It is impermissible to examine as to whether the sale itself suffered from any legal or factual infirmity, at this stage. It is a matter of record that though auction purchasers have deposited the entire sale consideration, two important steps, namely, conveyance of the property and delivery of possession, were not taken for the past three decades. The auction purchaser

Click Here to Read the rest of this document