Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Total Sale of Mortgaged Property - Under Order 21 Rule 58, the sale of mortgaged property is permissible if the property has been properly attached and sold in execution of a decree. However, if the property was already mortgaged and sold prior to the attachment, a claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 is generally not maintainable after the sale (References: ["Sugunanda Vilasom Society No. 130/1985 VS Abhilash Berly - Kerala"], ["Federal Bank Ltd. , Represented By Its Senior Manager VS Maniyoth Chandran, S/o. Chekkappi - Kerala"], ["B. Mahaboob Basha VS N. Gururaja Rao - Andhra Pradesh"]).
Maintainability of Claims Post-Sale - Claims under Order 21 Rule 58 are barred once the property has been sold, especially when the sale has been duly conducted following proper legal procedures. Applications under Order 21 Rule 97 or 98 are applicable when the property is still under attachment or in specific circumstances like third-party claims, but not after the sale is complete (References: ["Sugunanda Vilasom Society No. 130/1985 VS Abhilash Berly - Kerala"], ["Federal Bank Ltd. , Represented By Its Senior Manager VS Maniyoth Chandran, S/o. Chekkappi - Kerala"], ["B. Mahaboob Basha VS N. Gururaja Rao - Andhra Pradesh"]).
Sale of Mortgaged Property - The sale of mortgaged property can be conducted directly by the decree-holder if the property has been mortgaged prior to attachment. The sale must comply with procedural rules, including proper attachment and publication. If the sale is conducted improperly or without following mandatory procedures (e.g., failure to attach or irregular auction conduct), the sale can be declared void ab initio (References: ["Federal Bank Ltd. , Represented By Its Senior Manager VS Maniyoth Chandran, S/o. Chekkappi - Kerala"], ["Sai Balaji Housing Pvt. Ltd. VS Bharathi Warehousing Corporation - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Rajesh Upadhyay, Son of late Bhukhal Upadhyay VS State Of Bihar - Patna"], ["K. Rishikesava Nageswara Gupta VS Bank of India - Andhra Pradesh"]).
Legal Provisions and Irregularities - Orders 21 Rules 64, 66, 88, 90, and 92 provide detailed procedures for attachment, sale, and setting aside sales. Non-compliance with these rules, such as improper attachment or sale without following mandatory procedures, renders the sale illegal or void. Claims based on procedural irregularities are generally barred once the sale is confirmed, unless fraud or gross irregularity is established (References: ["K. B. Hemchand VS K. J. Shankar - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1020"], ["K. Rishikesava Nageswara Gupta VS Bank of India - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Rajesh Upadhyay, Son of late Bhukhal Upadhyay VS State Of Bihar - Patna"]).
Summary - Under Order 21 Rule 58, the total sale of a mortgaged property is allowed only if the property was properly attached and the sale was conducted following legal procedures. Post-sale claims under Rule 58 are typically barred, but applications under Rules 97 and 98 are permissible for specific claims or objections before the sale is confirmed. Proper adherence to procedural rules is essential to validate the sale; otherwise, it can be challenged and declared void (References: all sources).
In the complex world of debt recovery and property execution, judgment creditors often seek to sell off a debtor's assets to satisfy decrees. But what happens when the property is mortgaged and valuable? A common question arises: Is total sale of a mortgaged property allowed under Order 21 Rule 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908?
This issue strikes at the heart of fairness in execution proceedings. Courts must balance the decree holder's right to recovery with protecting the judgment debtor from excessive loss. This blog post dives deep into the legal principles, judicial interpretations, and practical implications, drawing from key precedents and statutory provisions. Whether you're a lender, borrower, or legal professional, understanding this can prevent costly mistakes.
Order 21 Rule 64 CPC governs the sale of attached property in execution of decrees. It states: Any Court executing a decree may order that any property attached by it and liable to sale, or such portion thereof as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree, shall be sold... K. B. Hemchand VS K. J. Shankar - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1020ANKARABOYINA PADMA Vs TANGUDU KALAVATHI & 4 OTHERS.
The rule imposes a mandatory duty on the executing court to sell only such portion of the attached property as is necessary to satisfy the decree. This prevents indiscriminate sales of entire assets, especially when the property is large and the decretal amount modest. As highlighted in judicial discourse, Court can sell not entire property but only such portion as... ANKARABOYINA PADMA Vs TANGUDU KALAVATHI & 4 OTHERS.
Total sale of a mortgaged property is generally not allowed under Order 21 Rule 64 unless the entire property is necessary to satisfy the decree. The court must actively assess and decide whether a part suffices, particularly for mortgaged or immovable properties.
The Supreme Court has reinforced this in cases like Ambati Narasayya v. M. Subba Rao (1989 Supp (2) SCC 693), emphasizing that the Court must decide whether only such portion of the property as is necessary to satisfy the decree should be sold. Sale of the entire property when only a part suffices is illegal B. RAGHURAMA SHETTY VS KARNATAKA BANK LTD. , MANGALORE - 1993 0 Supreme(Kar) 206. Similarly, in Mangal Prasad (AIR 1989 SC 2097), it was held that such sales amount to excessive execution SARWAN SINGH VS DISTRICT JUDGE - 2011 0 Supreme(All) 1882.
Indian courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently interpreted Rule 64 to prioritize minimal intrusion.
These rulings underscore that courts cannot rubber-stamp total sales without justification.
Mortgaged properties fall under the same scrutiny. While mortgages secure debts, execution sales must still adhere to Rule 64's proportionality mandate.
In practice, if a mortgaged property's value far exceeds the decree, the court should order partial sale to avoid undue hardship.
While the rule leans against total sales, exceptions exist:- Entire property necessary: If a partial sale won't cover the decree (e.g., due to indivisibility), full sale may be ordered SARWAN SINGH VS DISTRICT JUDGE - 2011 0 Supreme(All) 1882.- Court discretion: Supported by clear assessment that the whole is required.- Procedural lapses: Sales without notice under Rule 66(2) or proper attachment (Rule 54) are vulnerable V. K. Kannadasan S/o. Karuppaswami VS Radhakrishnan S/o. Velappan - 2018 Supreme(Ker) 391B. Sampath Kumar VS The Recovery Officer, Office of the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal & Others - 2007 Supreme(Mad) 3358.
However, even in exceptions, courts must document reasoning. Unauthorized full sales remain challengeable via appeal, revision, or Rule 90 applications Gude Seshu Kumari, W/o. Surendra Babu VS S. V. Appala Swamy, S/o. Veeraswamy - 2024 Supreme(AP) 1142.
To ensure compliance:1. Attachment: Prohibit transfers under Rule 54 Mukul Thakorebhai Amin VS Shree Mahalaxmi Mercantile Co-Op. Bank Ltd. - 2012 Supreme(Guj) 789.2. Proclamation: Drawn after notice, detailing property accurately under Rule 66(2) PRAVESH KUMAR SACHDEVA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2006 Supreme(All) 847.3. Valuation: Fair assessment to avoid undervaluation GSSS Credit Co-operative Society Limited VS Ashok Shivraj Goni - 2022 Supreme(Kar) 1262.4. Sale Confirmation: Only after verifying necessity Century Heatreats (P) Ltd. VS Punjab National Bank, Head Office No. 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi, Through Its Senior Manager - 2022 0 Supreme(HP) 141.
Non-compliance, like selling without valuation, invites quashing GSSS Credit Co-operative Society Limited VS Ashok Shivraj Goni - 2022 Supreme(Kar) 1262.
Parties should invoke these principles in challenges for relief.
In summary, under Order 21 Rule 64 CPC, total sale of a mortgaged property is typically not permitted unless the court determines the entire asset is essential to satisfy the decree. This safeguards against disproportionate executions, as affirmed by Supreme Court and High Court rulings.
Key Takeaways:- Prioritize proportionality to avoid sales being set aside B. RAGHURAMA SHETTY VS KARNATAKA BANK LTD. , MANGALORE - 1993 0 Supreme(Kar) 206SARWAN SINGH VS DISTRICT JUDGE - 2011 0 Supreme(All) 1882.- Ensure procedural steps like notices and valuations V. K. Kannadasan S/o. Karuppaswami VS Radhakrishnan S/o. Velappan - 2018 Supreme(Ker) 391.- Challenge irregularities promptly under relevant rules.
This post provides general information based on legal principles and is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation, as outcomes depend on facts and jurisdiction.
References:- B. RAGHURAMA SHETTY VS KARNATAKA BANK LTD. , MANGALORE - 1993 0 Supreme(Kar) 206, K. B. Hemchand VS K. J. Shankar - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1020, SARWAN SINGH VS DISTRICT JUDGE - 2011 0 Supreme(All) 1882, Century Heatreats (P) Ltd. VS Punjab National Bank, Head Office No. 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi, Through Its Senior Manager - 2022 0 Supreme(HP) 141, ANKARABOYINA PADMA Vs TANGUDU KALAVATHI & 4 OTHERS, Gude Seshu Kumari, W/o. Surendra Babu VS S. V. Appala Swamy, S/o. Veeraswamy - 2024 Supreme(AP) 1142, GSSS Credit Co-operative Society Limited VS Ashok Shivraj Goni - 2022 Supreme(Kar) 1262, V. K. Kannadasan S/o. Karuppaswami VS Radhakrishnan S/o. Velappan - 2018 Supreme(Ker) 391, AMIT KUMAR VS PREM KUMAR GARG - 2014 Supreme(All) 1787, Mukul Thakorebhai Amin VS Shree Mahalaxmi Mercantile Co-Op. Bank Ltd. - 2012 Supreme(Guj) 789, B. Sampath Kumar VS The Recovery Officer, Office of the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal & Others - 2007 Supreme(Mad) 3358, PRAVESH KUMAR SACHDEVA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2006 Supreme(All) 847.
#Order21Rule64, #CPCExecution, #PropertyLaw
Order 21 Rule 58 - Maintainability of petition after completion of sale - Order 21 Rule 97 - Remedy of 3rd ... party in possession - [Order 21 Rule 58, Order 21 Rule 97] Fact of the Case: The appellant ... Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Order 21 Rule 58 and Order #HL_START....
of Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC and Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act in a case involving a mortgage decree. ... Property - Mortgage - Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC, Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act - The court discussed the applicability ... The court analyzed the legal provisions and cited precedents to establish that for a claim under Order 21 Rule 58, there must b....
POINT: Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Order XXI Rule 64 and 66 CPC, which reads as under: Order 21 Rule 64 C.P.C. reads thus: RAO AND ANOTHER1, wherein it is held that as per order XXI Rule 64 CPC, Court can sell not entire property but only such portion as....
21 Rule 89 read with Order 21 Rule 92 or Order 34 Rule 5(2) of the Code of Civil Procedures. ... iii) Order 21 Rule 89 - Application to set aside sale on deposit. ... provisions of Order 21 Rule 54 and 66 of the CPC. ... of mortgaged#H....
21 Rule 58, Order XXI Rules 101 - Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Section 53 - Decree for immovable property - Attachment before ... Rule 35, Order XXI Rule 97, Order XXI Rule 98, Order XXI Rule 99, Order XXI Rule 103, Rule 5 Order XXX VIII, Order XXXIV Rule 1, Order ... This is a claim petition made by the third party claiming right over the property. So Order 21 Rule 58 CPC applies and....
19, 20) ... ... (C) Validity of sales conducted under improper or illegal circumstances under Order ... The subject property is an extent of 200 Sq.yards of site and RCC Building in it, situated within the Guntur Municipal Corporation limits. Seeking enforcement of the decree, plaintiff-decree-holder filed EP No.64 of 2012, by way of sale of the mortgaged property, under Orde....
21 Rule 90, and the issue of res judicata. ... 1940 - The court discussed the irregularities and fraud in conducting the auction sale, the limitations of filing a petition under Order ... Thus the settled law is that the auction sale held in execution of decree, without fulfilling the requirement of mandatory provision contained under order 21 rule 64 as well as the pro....
The sale was confirmed under O. 21, R. 92(1) of the Code and O. 21, R. 92(3) reads: "No suit to set aside an order made under this rule shall be brought by any person against whom such order is made." ... In that case it was held as follows: Order XXI Rule 64 C.P.C. enjoins that in all execution proceedings, the Court has to first d....
The learned Judge while dealing with Order 21, Rules 90, 64 and 66(2)(a) CPC held that: "Entire property attached put to sale for realisation of decretal amount as judgment-debtor remained absent and did not raise objection for sale of the entire attached property on the grounds of illegality, irregularity ... or fraud under Order 21,....
the application under Order 21 Rule 97 and 98. ... Entertaining the application under Order 21 Rule 97 and 98. 3. ... The executing Court allowed the application under Order 21 Rule 59 and proceeded to hold an enquiry on the applications under Order ... However, executing Court had allowed the application filed under Order 2....
Under Rule 64 the court may order sale of the said property. Under Rule 66(2) proclamation of sale by public auction shall be drawn up in the language of the court and it should be done after notice to the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor and should state the “time and pace of sale” and “specify as fairly and accurately as possible” the details specified in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-rule (2) thereof. Thereafter in the case of a decree for execution against immovable prop....
Under Rule 64 the Court may order sale of the said property. Under Rule 68(2) proclamation of sale by public auction shall be drawn up in the language of the Court and it should be done after notice to the decree holder and the judgment debtor and should state “the time and place of sale” and “specified as fairly and accurately as possible” the details specified in Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-rule (2) thereof. Thereafter in the case of a decree for execution against immovable p....
Thereafter in the case of a decree for execution against immovable property an attachment under Rule 54 should be made by an order prohibiting the judgment-debtor from transferring or creating encumbrances on the property. Under Rule 64 the court may order sale of the said property. The Civil Rules of Practise in Part L in the Chapter 12 framed by the High Court of Delhi 'Sale of Property and Delivery to the Purchaser' Under Rule 6(2) proclamation of sale by public auction sh....
Thereafter in the case of a decree for execution against immovable property an attachment under Rule 54 should be made by an order prohibiting the judgment-debtor from transferring or creating encumbrances on the property. Under Rule 64 the court may order sale of the said property. The Civil Rules of Practice in Part L in the Chapter 12 framed by the High Court of Delhi Sale of Property and Delivery to the Purchaser" Rule 2 provides that whenever a court makes an order for t....
The Civil Rules of Practice in Part L in the Chapter 12 framed by the High Court of Delhi “Sale of Property and Delivery to the Purchaser” Rule 2 provides that whenever a court makes an order for the sale of any attached property under Order 21 Rule 64 it shall fix a convenient date not being distant more than 15 days for ascertaining the particulars specified in Order 21, Rule 66 (2) and settling the proclamation of sale. Under Rule 64 the Court may order sale of the said property.#....
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
