A suit for delivery of possession by a court auction purchaser against the judgment debtors is barred by section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 1 ) THE defendants in the suit are the appellants in the Second appeal. The suit is filed for delivery of possession. The plaintiff is a Court auction-purchaser of the suit land and the defendants are the judgment debtors. The question of law involved in the Second Appeal is whether the suit filed for delivery of possession by the respondent-plaintiff, who is the Court auction-purchaser, against the appellants-judgment-debtors is maintainable. Sri M. V. Ramana Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellants defendants, has argued that the suit is not maintainable as it is barred by section 47 of the Code of Civil procedure.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff purchased the suit land when it was brought to sale on 16th April, 1962 in E. P. No. 46 of 1961 in O. S. No. 160 of 1969. Subsequently the sale was confirmed on 12th February, 1964. The present suit is filed on 9th september, 1970.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to Sri Ramana Reddy, the plaintiff being a Court-auction-purchaser for delivery of possession he ought to have filed a petition under section 47, Civil Procedure Code, within one year from the date of confirmation of the sale as provided under Article 134 of the Limitation Act.

( 4 ) IT is provided under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed or. their representatives and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree shall be determined by the court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.

( 5 ) IN order that section 47, Civil procedure Code may be attracted, therefore, two conditions have to be satisfied, viz. (1) that the question must arise between the parties to the suit and (2) it must relate to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree.

( 6 ) THE point is whether the relief of delivery of possession of the property purchased by the plaintiff is a question arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed and it relates to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Admittedly the plaintiff is a third party Court-auction purchaser and was not a party to the suit in which the decree was passed. But as per Explanation II to section 47, which was introduced in the year 1956 a purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree is made a party to the suit for the purpose of section 47. Therefore, as per that Explanation, condition No. 1 is satisfied because, the present suit is between the Court-auction-purchaser and the Judgment-debtors.

( 7 ) AS to whether delivery of possession is a question which arises in execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, there was a conflict of decisions between the various High Courts. This conflict is now resolved by the Supreme Court in harnandrai v. Debundutt by holding that the question of delivery of possession is one relating to execution, dis-j charge or satisfaction of the decree. The Supreme Court in paragraph 6 of its judgment observed thus:" Section 47 in our view should be construed liberally. As far back in 1892 Prosunno Coomar Sanyal v. Kalidas Sanyal the Privy Council spoke strongly in favour of putting a liberal construction on section 244 of the code of Civil Procedure of 1882 which corresponded to section 47 of the Code of 1908. The Privy Council reiterated this in Ganapathy v. Krishnamachariar If aliberal constructionbeput on section 47, it is difficult to understand why a decree-holder who has been a party to the decree will shed his character as such party merely upon purchasing the property at the execution sale. After all, a decree holder purchases the property in execution of the decree with the permission of the Court. There is no reason why he should not retain his character of a party to the suit until the delivery of possession to him of the property purchased by him. Having regard to this consideration, if any question is raised by the judgment-debtor at the time of delivery of possession concerning the nature of the rights pu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document