Back
2022 Supreme(All) 1983
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Rama Nand Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Hira Lal - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 1698 of 1990
Decided on : 30-09-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Chatharjee, Santosh Kumar, Satya Deo Ojha and Saurabh Srivastava
For the Respondent: Akhileshwar Mishra, Aniruddh Kumar and S.N. Tripathi
IMPORTANT POINT
A Magistrate can enforce maintenance orders by issuing recovery certificates to the Collector, allowing recovery as arrears of land revenue.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Maintenance - Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., Section 421 Cr.P.C. - The court interpreted the powers of a Magistrate to enforce maintenance orders through recovery certificates, affirming the legality of such actions under the specified sections, which influenced the dismissal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought to declare a revenue sale void, claiming it was based on an ex parte maintenance order that had been set aside. The defendant argued he was a bona fide purchaser without notice of the maintenance order's status.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revenue sale was conducted legally, and the defendant was a bona fide purchaser. The plaintiff's failure to communicate the setting aside of the maintenance order contributed to the legality of the sale.
Issues: Whether the auction sale was illegal, whether the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction, whether the court had jurisdiction, and whether the suit was undervalued.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Magistrate had the authority to enforce maintenance orders through recovery certificates as arrears of land revenue, affirming the legality of the defendant's purchase.
Result: The appeal is dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.
This is a plaintiff's appeal, arising out of a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are these:
The plaintiff-appellant, Rama Nand, who shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'plaintiff', instituted O.S. No. 390 of 1985 in the Ex-Court of Munsif Havali, Varanasi, seeking a declaration to the effect that the proceedings of revenue sale dated 4.12.1982 and the sale letter based on it relating to land, detailed at the foot of the plaint, be declared void and a decree of permanent injunction granted, restraining the defendant-respondent, Hira Lal (for short, 'the defendant') from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit property or changing its nature and character.
3. The plaintiff's case is that Smt. Usha Devi brought proceedings against him under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar seeking award of maintenance. In the maintenance case aforesaid, the Magistrate passed an ex parte order, granting maintenance to Smt. Usha Devi on 13.1.1982. The ex parte maintenance order dated 13.1.1982 was passed against the plaintiff. The plaintiff, upon coming to know of the ex parte order, made an application to the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, seeking to set aside the sale. The Magistrate on 17.5.1982 allowed the plaintiff's application and set aside the ex parte maintenance order dated 13.1.1982. In the meantime, on the basis of the ex parte maintenance order dated 13.1.1982, the defendant, in connivance with the Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildar, Varanasi, brought the plaintiff's immovable property, detailed at the foot of the plaint (for short, 'the suit property') to sale on 4.12.1982. The plaintiff's wife applied for the recovery of dues under the ex parte maintenance order. The plaintiff did not know anything about the revenue sale held, creating rights in favour of the defendant.
4. It is the plaintiff's case that after the maintenance order dated 13.1.1982 had been set aside on 17.5.1982, sale of the plaintiff's property on 4.12.1982 was one made without jurisdiction, as there was no maintenance order in existence then to execute. It was also pleaded that the proceedings of the revenue sale are vitiated, because there was no proclamation by beat of drum, nor proceedings taken in accordance with law. The sale is fraudulent and illegal. The further case is that the defendant, on the basis of the revenue sale concluded in his favour, is moving to forcefully dispossess the plaintiff.
5. The defendant put in a written statement, pleading that he had purchased the suit property in the revenue sale held, wherein there was no illegality or irregularity. The defendant on 4.12.1982, upon payment of sale consideration, that was fetched in the auction proceedings, purchased the suit property bona fide. He had paid a total consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. The proceedings of the auction sale have been confirmed and the sale certificate issued in favour of the defendant. The legality or irregularity in conducting the sale cannot be questioned before the Civil Court. The defendant never connived with Smt. Usha Devi nor did he procure a judgment, based on any kind of conspiracy with Smt. Usha Devi, or got the revenue sale held in furtherance of any conspiracy, as alleged by the plaintiff. The Tehsildar and the Naib Tehsildar did not take proceedings of the revenue sale in a manner that is bogus or fraudulent. The defendant, Hira Lal never had knowledge of the fact about the maintenance order passed ex parte under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the plaintiff being set aside. The further case is that even if the order of maintenance ex parte was set aside, the revenue sale held on 4.12.1982, cannot be set aside, because the defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and further the auction sale has been confirmed.
6. The defendant has averred that the plaintiff did not object to the auction p
