Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 45939
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
SRI B. KRISHNAMURTHY – Appellant
Versus
SMT.PADMA KODANDARAM – Respondent
WP 53669 / 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. M R RAJAGOPAL SENIOR COUNSEL, SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU
For the Respondents: SRI. NAGARAJA RAO K S, SRI. D.S. SRIDHAR
The court emphasized that parties to a compromise decree cannot seek relief contrary to its terms, and the statutory requirements of the CPC must be adhered to in auction proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXI Rules 84 and 85 - Writ petition challenging the dismissal of applications concerning auction proceedings in a partition suit - Court held that the petitioner, being a party to the compromise decree, cannot seek relief contrary to the agreed terms - The auction process was valid as the petitioner did not challenge the sale certificate and failed to comply with the statutory deposit requirements - The court concluded that the relief sought by the petitioner was impermissible under the circumstances. (Paras 7, 25, 26)
(B) Partition Act, 1893 - Sections 2 and 3 - Applicability of CPC provisions in partition suits - Court held that while the Partition Act provides enabling provisions, the mandatory requirements of the CPC must be followed in public auctions, and the court has discretion to extend time for compliance. (Paras 11, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a co-sharer in a partition suit, challenged the dismissal of applications related to the auction of property agreed upon in a compromise decree. The auction was conducted, but the petitioner claimed that the deposit was not made within the stipulated time, which he argued vitiated the auction. (Paras 2, 4, 25)
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the validity of the auction and the compromise decree, stating that the petitioner was estopped from seeking contrary relief as he participated in the proceedings without objection. (Paras 7, 25, 26)
Issues: The main issues included whether the auction was valid despite the late deposit and whether the petitioner could challenge the auction process after agreeing to the terms in the compromise decree. (Paras 11, 25)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner could not seek to retain his share in the property or challenge the auction process due to his prior agreement in the compromise decree, and the statutory requirements of the CPC must be adhered to in public auctions. (Paras 25, 26)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenges execution order related to property partition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. compromise memo outlines agreement on property auction process. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. auction process and requirements for deposit are discussed. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. legal precedent highlights mandatory auction deposit rules. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. court emphasizes the binding nature of compromise agreements. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. court clarifies application of partition act versus cpc rules. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. court reviews procedural compliance and dismisses the petition. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 8. writ petition dismissed; no grounds for interference found. (Para 27) |
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
1. The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.1/2016 dated 10.10.2017 in Ex.No.2371/2012 by XXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (C.C.H.No.7).
2. The petitioner before this Court is the defendant in the suit. The suit i.e., O.S.No.5590/1996 was filed seeking partition in respect of the plaint A, B and C schedule properties and the plaintiff claimed 1/10th share. The property as far as ‘C’ schedule is concerned is dismissed and as far as Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ is concerned, the suit is decreed. Aggrieved there by RFA.No.2411/2006 was filed, which came to be allowed on 24.07.2008.
3. The parties have filed the, compromise memo.
4. Paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of compromise memo, reads as under:
“8. Both the appellants and the respondents have mutually agreed that the ‘B’ Schedule property cannot be divided equally among themselves and cannot be put into separate possession and thereby the appellants and the respondents have agreed to sell the ‘B’ Schedule property in public auction in FDP.No.88/2006, pending before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru within 10.04.2008 by extending full co-operation between themselves.
9. The appellants and respondents have mutually agreed to divide the sale proceeds among themselves according to the share declared in the preliminary decree after deducting all the legal expenses for the sale of the ‘B’ schedule property in public auction. The appellants and respondents are entitled to bid in the auction without initial deposit.”
5. The suit ‘B’ schedule property is property No.17, (formerly No.111/2), situated in 5th cross, New Kalasipalyam layout, Bengaluru measuring 30 x 80 square feet. As per the same, the auction was conducted on 30.05.2011 and highest bidder has to deposit 25% of the bid amount. As on 14.06.2011, 15 days time was expired. On 08.06.2011, the highest bidder filed a memo to deposit the amount. On 11.07.2011, the amount was deposited, but it was deposited to the account of the petitioners. Hence, they have come up with these two applications before the Court. On 16.11.2016, 3rd respondent has filed an application under Section 151 of CPC, praying to permit the petitioner herein to retain his share in the property and permit or direct the auction purchaser to withdraw the amount deposited by him without claiming the share of 3rd respondent in the interest of justice and equity. Application under Order XXI Rule 29 of CPC is filed praying to stay the proceedings in the execution petition, pending disposal of the case in FDP.No.88/2006. Both these applications came to be dismissed by the Court by virtue of this order impugned.
6. With regard to the application filed under Section 151 of CPC, the Court has passed an order on 11.11.2011 directing the issuance of sale certificate to the purchasers, who are the sisters. The sale certificate was registered on 15.06.2012 in favour of sisters. The petitioner before this Court, who is the brother-3rd respondent, has participated in the proceedings in RFA.No.2411/2006 and he has not challenged the public auction as well as sale certificate. 3rd respondent is estopped from seeking any relief but to retain his share in ‘B’ Schedule property by way of application. In FDP, Memo of Calculation is said to ha
