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

2014 Supreme(Kar) 1017

N.KUMAR
Abdul Ubedulla – Appellant
Versus
Noorjahn – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant :Vivek B. Ramakrishna, Advocate for Kashyap N. Naik, Advocate
For Respondents: T.V. Subramanya Prasad and G.S. Venkatasubba Rao, Advs.

Judgement Key Points

Yes, the judgment references the Supreme Court's position regarding the limitation period for filing applications under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC. Specifically, it clarifies that the limitation begins from the date the sale becomes absolute after confirmation by the court, and not from the date of issuance of the sale certificate. The court emphasizes that the sale becomes absolute upon confirmation, which is the relevant date for calculating the limitation period, and that the sale certificate is merely evidence of the sale, not a prerequisite for filing the application for possession. This interpretation aligns with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in prior judgments regarding the timing of title transfer and limitation in court auction proceedings (!) (!) .


ORDER :

N. Kumar, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the auction purchaser in a Court sale whose application under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC seeking delivery of possession of the property purchased in Court auction is rejected on the ground that the application is barred by limitation. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed a suit, O.S. No. 123/1999 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madhugiri, against 6th respondent seeking a decree for maintenance and creation of charge in respect of two items of schedule properties. The said suit, after contest, came to be decreed on 06.11.2003 granting monthly maintenance of Rs. 400/- to the 1st respondent and Rs. 300/- to each of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 6th respondent was also directed to pay cost of Rs. 1,254/- and charge was created on item Nos. 1 and 2 of the schedule properties. 6th respondent preferred R.A. No. 162/2003 challenging the said judgment and decree, but the judgment and decree of the trial Court was not stayed therein. Therefore respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed execution petition Ex. No. 39/2004 on 07.04.2004 for recov
































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top