IMPORTANT POINT
Auction purchasers can seek possession under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC, as they inherit the rights of the original auction purchaser, emphasizing the legal right to possession as integral to property sales.

JUDGMENT :

Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J.

The question to be answered in these appeals is whether purchasers from auction purchaser can make an application under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC for obtaining possession of the properties which are in occupancy of the respondents in these appeals.

2. If the facts leading to these two appeals are traced, they are:

O.S.No.73/1969 was a suit for partition instituted in the court of Principal Civil Judge, Mysuru, by Gowramma and others against T.G.Harinath and others. Preliminary decree was passed on 30.06.1980 declaring the extent of shares of the parties to the suit. In the final decree proceeding i.e., FDP No.3/1982, as it was found that one of the subject matters of the suit i.e., Upadhyaya Building was not feasible for division by metes and bounds since 29 shares were to be carved out, the parties agreed for sale of the said building and to share the sale proceeds. Thereafter auction was held and the bid of one Sri Siraj Ahmed for Rs.4,52,00,000/- was accepted. The sale was confirmed on 21.02.2014 and sale certificate was issued to the purchaser on 19.03.2014. Upadhyaya building consisted of a number of shops. The auction purchaser sold portions of the building to several persons. Appellants in RFA No.557/2016 purchased one shop portion each in their individual names vide two sale deeds dated 12.09.2014 and 26.09.2014. Likewise, the appellant in RFA No.558/2016 also purchased a shop portion from Siraj Ahmed under sale deed dated 12.09.2014. It is to be noted here that Siraj Ahmed did not obtain possession of the entire building after he was issued with sale certificate, instead he sold different portions of the building to several persons by executing sale deeds. The appellants herein thereafter initiated two execution proceedings i.e., Ex.No.5/2015 and Ex.No.6/2015 for obtaining possession of their respective shop portions by filing applications under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC. The executing court, vide order dated 05.10.2015, dismissed the applications mainly on the ground that the respondents were not the judgment debtors inasmuch as the property was not sold in execution of a decree and therefore the appellants could not avail remedy under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC. Against this order, these two appeals are filed.

3. We have heard the arguments of Sri S. Sriranga, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri B.S. Ravindra for respondents in RFA 557/2016 and for respondents 1 and 2 in RFA 558/2016.

4. Sri S. Sriranga argued this way: The appellants being the purchasers from the auction purchaser can very much maintain an application under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC inasmuch as they stepped into the shoes of the auction purchaser. It is not in dispute that Siraj Ahmed was the highest bidder in the auction sale and the sale certificate was also issued to him. He could have initiated action to take possession of the entire property as he was the auction purchaser. Instead he sold the portions of the building to several persons without taking possession from the occupants of the building. A lawful purchaser of immovable property is to be put in possession or else there is no meaning to sale. Since the sale was through intervention of court in final decree proceeding, there was no need to file a separate suit to take possession of the property from the occupants of the building. If the purchasers are asked to file separate suit for possession, it is against the scope of Order 21 Rule 95 of CPC which permits the auction purchaser to take the possession of the property. Only requirement is that the application should be made within one year from the date of issuance of sale certificate. In this case, the applications were made within a year and therefore the applications were very much maintainable. The view of the executing court that the respondents are not judgment debtors and therefore application against them under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC cannot be filed is incorrect. The scope of the said rule is tha