Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
Joseph@thampikunju S/o Kurian – Appellant
Versus
Retnamma(died) D/o Kunjipennamma – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. counsel arguments presented (Para 11) |
| 2. court's view on execution (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 3. judgment and decree set aside (Para 52) |
JUDGMENT :
2. It is a settled law that a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall not be admitted when the Substantial Question of Law raised therein is a settled question of law. The very same question which is involved in this Regular Second Appeal was considered by the Full Bench of this Court in Danish Varghese v. Jancy Danish [ 2021 (1) KHC 1 ]. Even though the very same question was considered and answered by the Full Bench of the Court, both sides rely on the findings of the Full Bench in support of their contention. The contention of the appellants/contesting defendants is that the Full Bench has laid down the law that a fresh suit for recovery of possession at the instance of an auction purchaser who failed to obtain delivery within the limitation period under Article 134 of the Limitation Act is barred under Section 47 CPC. On the othe
An auction purchaser who fails to take delivery within one year is barred from filing a fresh suit for possession under Section 47 CPC, but may file under Article 65 if based on title.
The limitation for an auction purchaser to seek delivery of possession commences from the issuance of the sale certificate, and a separate suit for recovery of possession is barred under Section 47 o....
The auction purchaser's suit for possession is maintainable despite conflicting precedents, affirming the validity of the auction sale and the rights conferred by the execution proceedings.
The limitation period for delivery of possession under Article 134 begins from the confirmation of sale, not the issuance of the sale certificate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sale becomes absolute only after the final disposal of ancillary proceedings, and the one-year limitation period under Article 134 of the ....
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 sale....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefit of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act would not be available if the earlier suit was dismissed after adjudication on its merits a....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
