Back
Madras High Court
N. S. RAMASWAMI
Subbammal - Appellant
Versus
P.Gurusamy Thevar - Respondent
Decided On : 01/22/1974
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 21, RULES 84, 85 AND 86 - DEPOSIT OF PURCHASE MONEY AND GENERAL STAMPS - TIME LIMIT - EXTENSION OF TIME - JURISDICTION OF COURT - SALE HELD IN EXECUTION OF DECREE - NULLITY.
Fact of the Case:
In three execution proceedings, three lots of properties were sold in court auction and purchased by three different third parties. The auction purchasers deposited 25% of the purchase money and the balance within 15 days as per Order 21, Rule 85, C.P.C. However, there was a deficiency in the deposit of general stamps, which was made up eight days after the 15-day period. The executing court allowed the applications filed by the auction purchasers to condone the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the executing court had no jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the purchase money or general stamps. Rules 84, 85, and 86 of Order 21, C.P.C. are mandatory, and the court has no discretion in the matter. Non-compliance with Rule 85 results in the defaulting purchaser forfeiting all claims to the property, as per Rule 86. The sale held in execution of a decree is a nullity when the amounts mentioned in Order 21, Rule 85, C.P.C. are not deposited in full before the court closes on the 15th day from the date of the sale of the property.
Issues: 1. Whether the executing court has jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the purchase money or general stamps under Order 21, Rules 84, 85, and 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.)? 2. Whether the sale held in execution of a decree is a nullity when the amounts mentioned in Order 21, Rule 85, C.P.C. are not deposited in full before the court closes on the 15th day from the date of the sale of the property?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Order 21, Rules 84, 85, and 86 of the C.P.C. are mandatory, and the court has no discretion to extend the time for depositing the purchase money or general stamps. 2. Non-compliance with Rule 85 results in the defaulting purchaser forfeiting all claims to the property, as per Rule 86. 3. The sale held in execution of a decree is a nullity when the amounts mentioned in Order 21, Rule 85, C.P.C. are not deposited in full before the court closes on the 15th day from the date of the sale of the property.
Final Decision: The revision petitions were allowed, and the applications filed by the auction purchasers to condone the delay in depositing the general stamps were dismissed. The executing court was directed to refund the money and stamps already deposited by the auction purchasers.
2. I am quite clear that the order of the executing court in allowing the execution applications filed by the auction purchasers is one without jurisdiction. Under Rule 85 of Order 21, not only the full amount of purchase money payable but also the general stamps for certificate (or the amount required for such stamps) shall be deposited into court before the court closes on the 15th day from the date of sale of the property. If the purchaser is the decree holder himself, the proviso to the above said rule says, that in calculating the amount to be so paid into court, he shall have the advantage of any set-off to which he may be entitled under Rule 72. However, this proviso has no application with regard to the general stamps to be deposited. Further, in this case, the auction purchasers are third parties and therefore, the proviso to Rule 85 has no application at all. Thus under Rule 85, the purchasers ought to have deposited the full amount of the purchase money and also the full general stamps for certificate before the court closes on the 15th day from the date of the sale of the property. Admittedly, in this case, the three auction purchasers though have deposited the full amount of purchase money and part of the general stamps, there was deficiency in general stamps. The deficiency came to be made up only eight days after the 15 days period prescribed in Rule 85. It would appear that the auction purchasers had made a mistake in calculating the general stamps required for the certificate and that is how there was deficiency in the deposit of general stamps. Whatever be the reason for the deficiency, the fact remains that the requirement under Rule 85 had not been fully complied with.
3. What is the effect of non-compliance of Rule 85 is the question. Has the executing court jurisdiction to extend time for depositing either the purchase money or the general stamp ? I am quite clear that the court has no such jurisdiction.
4. There is no dispute that Section 148, C.P.C. has no application here. That section says that where any period is fixed or granted by the court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by the Code, the court may in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period. In the present case, there is no question of any period having been fixed or granted by the court for the doing of a particular act. It is the statutory provision contained in Rule 85 of Order 21 which makes it obligatory on the part of the auction purchaser to deposit not only the f
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
