Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Bhikchand S/o Dhondiram Mutha (Deceased) Through Lrs. VS Shamabai Dhanraj Gugale (Deceased) Through Lrs. ...
2024 4 Supreme 505 : Under Order XXI Rule 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court executing a decree has a mandatory obligation to sell only such portion of the attached property as is necessary to satisfy the decree, and not the entire property. The court must first determine whether a part of the property would be sufficient to satisfy the decree. If the property is large and the decree amount is small, only the portion whose sale proceeds would satisfy the decree should be sold. This is not a mere discretion but a legal obligation. Therefore, even if a charge is created on the property in the decree, the entire property does not have to be sold; only the portion necessary to satisfy the decree amount must be sold. Sale of the entire property without assessing this requirement is illegal and without jurisdiction.Checking relevance for Ambati Narasayya VS M. Subba Rao...
1989 0 Supreme(SC) 508 : Under Order XXI, Rule 64 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the executing court is mandated to sell only such portion of the attached property as is necessary to satisfy the decree, even if the property is one indivisible unit. The court must not sell the entire property if a smaller portion can satisfy the decree. This duty is not discretionary but a legislative mandate. In cases where a charge exists on the property, the court must first determine whether a part of the property can be sold to meet the decree amount, and if so, only that portion should be sold. The sale of the entire property without considering the possibility of selling a portion is illegal and without jurisdiction, especially when the property is not indivisible and division is not impracticable or undesirable. Therefore, the entire property does not have to be sold in an execution petition even if a charge exists on it, provided a portion can satisfy the decree.Checking relevance for Lucknow Nagar Nigam VS Kohli Brothers Colour Lab. Pvt. Ltd. ...
Checking relevance for Lal Chand VS Viiith Additional District Judge...
1997 3 Supreme 21 : Under Order XXI, Rule 64 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, a court executing a decree may order the sale of ''''such portion thereof as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree'''', and not necessarily the entire property. The court is obligated to ensure that only the portion of the property sufficient to satisfy the decree is sold. This principle was emphasized in multiple precedents, including Ambati Narasayya v. M. Subba Rao and Takaseela Pedda Subba Reddy v. Pujari Padmavathamma, where the Supreme Court held that selling the entire property when only a part is needed constitutes illegal and jurisdictionally flawed execution. Even if a charge exists on the property, the court must first determine whether a reasonable portion of the property can satisfy the decree before ordering the sale of the entire property. Therefore, the entire property does not have to be sold in execution if a portion can satisfy the decree amount.Checking relevance for Hamda Ammal VS Avadiappapathar...
1990 0 Supreme(SC) 684 : The court held that even if a sale deed is executed before attachment but registered after attachment, the vendee''''s rights are protected and the sale is effective from the date of execution. The registration of the sale deed relates back to the date of execution under Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908. The court further emphasized that attachment before judgment does not affect the rights of third parties who had already acquired rights prior to the attachment, including through a valid sale deed. Therefore, in an execution petition, the entire property does not necessarily have to be sold if a charge or sale has already been created in favor of a third party prior to attachment. The right of the vendee, once the sale deed is executed and registered, is protected and cannot be defeated by a subsequent court sale or attachment, provided the sale was valid and the deed was registered within the statutory period. The court explicitly rejected the argument that registration is required before the attachment to validate the sale, stating that the right to register is not denied by attachment, and the act of registration is not a transfer that is prohibited under Section 64 of the Civil Procedure Code.Checking relevance for S. MARIYAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS. VS SIDDAPPA...
2004 0 Supreme(SC) 172 : Under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 21 Rule 66(2)(a), where a part of the property would be sufficient to satisfy the decree, only that part should be sold by public auction. The executing court has a statutory duty to ensure that the sale of property in execution proceedings is limited to the extent necessary to satisfy the decree, and it must apply its mind to determine whether selling only a portion of the property would suffice. The sale of the entire property is not mandatory if a part can satisfy the decretal debt. This principle is reinforced by Order 21 Rule 64, which mandates that only such property or a portion thereof as may be necessary to satisfy the decree should be sold. Failure to consider selling only a part of the property, when sufficient to meet the debt, constitutes a material irregularity and may lead to the sale being set aside.
