KANTHILAL Vs. PADMA MAIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE auction-purchaser of the property concerned in execution in Execution Case No. 495 of 1985 on the file of the City Civil Court at Bangalore, is the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved by the allowing of I. A. 8 filed under Order 21, Rule 97 and Section 47 of the CPC and declaration that the sale in favour of the auction-purchaser held and confirmed, is declared to be null and void and not binding on the applicant third party purchaser and also the cancellation of the sale certificate issued in favour of the auction-purchaser by the Court.

(2.) AN interesting question has been raised in this appeal as to whether title goes to the Court auction-purchaser in execution sale or to a third party private purchaser, who during the pendency of the proceedings, purchased the property.

(3.) THE admitted facts are as follows: The third respondent herein, who is the decree-holder, filed o. S. No. 2048 of 1982 against the second respondent who is the judgment-debtor. The property involved in the appeal which can be referred to as the schedule property was attached under order 38, Rule 5 of the CPC, before judgment. The suit was decreed in execution for recovery of money EP 495 of 1985 was filed and the property was again attached. The property was brought to sale in the Court auction sale, the appellant's bid for Rs. 1,45,000/-, being the highest was accepted, and on paying the entire amount, sale was confirmed, sale certificate was issued and the sale certificate was also registered before the Sub-Registrar under Receipt No. 2571. The third respondent-decree-holder, obtained payment of the decreed amount and petition for delivery by auction-purchaser under Order 21, Rule 95 was filed, delivery warrant was issued. In the meantime, the first respondent claiming to be the private purchaser of the property, filed four i. As. namely, 6, 7, 8 and 9, for various reliefs. I. A. 8 filed under Order 21, Rule 97 was allowed, cancelling the sale certificate, and I. A. 9 under Order 21, Rule 90 was dismissed. I. A. 7 was for recalling the delivery warrant and I. A. 6 for early hearing. In view of the orders in the later I. As. they had been infructuous. Immediately, the present R. F. A. is filed against the orders passed on i. A. 8. Earlier the appeal was allowed and impugned orders on I. A. 8 was set aside following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Silverline Forum Private Limited v Rajiv Trust and Another. Later C. P. was filed for review and the same was allowed and the appeal was restored. Now it is heard afresh.