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

2023 Supreme(Ker) 513

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, A. BADHARUDEEN
Nirmala, W/o. Gopinathan – Appellant
Versus
Sundaresan (Deceased), S/o. Kochu Velu – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.M.R.RAJESH, SMT.E.S.SANDHYA
For the Respondent: P.ANIYAN, K.JAGADEESH, PRIYA NAIR, V.RENJU, VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN

Judgement Key Points

A non-decree holder affected by a court sale can challenge it under Order XXI Rule 90 if there is material irregularity or fraud (!) (!) . Fraud must be pleaded and proved; mere allegations are insufficient (!) (!) . The challenge must be filed within 60 days from the date of sale or from when the applicant becomes aware of the sale or fraud; this period cannot be extended solely due to concealment (!) (!) . The application is barred if filed after the limitation period. Challenging the sale requires demonstrating substantial injury or injustice caused by irregularity or fraud, not merely alleging collusion or low sale price (!) (!) .


JUDGMENT :

A.BADHARUDEEN, J.

This appeal sprang up from the order in E.A.No.77/2014 in E.P.No.8/2008 in O.S.82/2004 on the files of the Sub Court, Attingal. The appellants are the legal representatives of one Gopinathan, S/o.Padmanabhan, who originally filed E.A.No.77/2014 as a third party seeking the relief to set aside the sale conducted in E.P.No.8/2008 in O.S.No.82/2004 on 14.06.2010 and confirmed on 16.08.2010.

2. The respondents herein are the decree holder/auction purchaser and the judgment debtors in the above E.P. During pendency of this appeal, the 1st respondent died and his legal heirs got impleaded as additional respondents 5 and 6.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in detail. Perused the lower court records and the relevant decisions on the point, including the decisions placed by both sides.

4. Shown off unnecessary embellishments, the facts of the case are as under:

Sundareshan, the 1st respondent herein filed Suit -O.S.No.82/2004, before the Sub Court, Attingal and obtained decree to realise an amount of Rs.1,44,450/-with 6% interest from respondents 2 to 4 herein on 31.05.2007. The property ha

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            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