KURUVILLA Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition has been referred to a Division Bench for considering the question whether the judgment debtors have to deposit the costs incurred by the decree holder auction purchaser subsequent to the sale also to avoid the sale under S.22 of Kerala Act XXXI of 1958.

(2.) The sale took place in August 1940 and it was confirmed in July 1941. Still, delivery of possession was effected only on 22nd March 1958, i. e., after 1st November 1956, the date mentioned in S.22(1)(i) of Act XXXI of 1958. Taking advantage of this, the judgment debtors filed a petition on 5th August 1958 under S.22(1)(ii)(a) depositing along with the petition one half of the purchase money, which included all the execution costs up to the date of sale. The question for consideration is whether the deposit was proper; in other words, whether the judgment debtors were bound to deposit costs incurred by the decree holder auction purchaser subsequent to the sale also. We may incidentally point out at this stage that there is no evidence in the case as to how much were the costs incurred after the sale.

(3.) S.22(1)(ii)(a) enacts that the judgment debtor has to deposit one half of the purchase money together with the costs of execution, where such costs were not included in the purchase money. It is this expression that has to be interpreted: whether the deposit need be only a moiety of the purchase money in a case where the purchase money included all the costs of execution up to the date of sale; or whether the deposit should include the costs incurred by the decree holder even after the sale.