CHHATRADHARILAL GANGARAM SUPEDAR Vs. SHYAMABAI RAMSEWAKLAL AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent from the judgment and decree of Pandey J. , affirming those of the executing Court, raises the question whether on sale of land in execution of a decree for realisation of money, the auction-purchaser ipso facto acquires title to the growing crops. The learned Single judge answered it in the affirmative. This is judgment-debtor's appeal.

(2.) SMT. Shyamabai had a decree against the appellant Chhatradharilal for recovery of money. In execution of that decree, extensive lands belonging to the judgment-debtor were attached and sold. The decree-holder herself purchased the property for Rs. 30,000/- in Court sale. A sale certificate declaring her to be the purchaser of Khudkasht and sir lands, area 300. 86 acres in village Thelka, was issued. In the sale certificate, khasra numbers together with area of every one of them were specified. It was on an application filed by decree-holder's agent, asserting that the decree-holder was entitled to the growing crops also, that possession of the land alongwith standing crops was delivered to the auction purchaser, without notice to the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor then raised the objection that possession of the growing crops could not be given to the auction purchaser inasmuch as the standing crops were sown by him and that they were neither attached, nor sold in execution of the decree. He complained that it was excessive execution and prayed for restitution of the standing crops, i. e. , restoration of possession of the crops; alternatively, Rs. 20,000/-as damages. The decree-holder purchaser resisted the above objection and also said that in case it be held that she was not entitled to the growing crops, she was liable to account for Rs. 5317/3/- only.

(3.) THE 1st Additional District Judge, Raipur, who was executing the decree held that the judgment-debtor was not entitled to a notice of the auction purchaser's application dated 12 October 1960. Relying on Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal affairs, Bengal v. Bhagirath Mahto, AIR 1934 Cal 610, Arman Shaik v. Naimuddin shaik, AIR 1936 Cal 157, Ramalinga v. Samaiappa ILR 13 Mad 15 and Afatoolla Sirdar v. Dwarka Nath, ILR 4 Cal 814, he held that the title to the growing crops automatically passed to the purchaser. The judgment-debtor took an appeal to this Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Apart from the four decisions above mentioned, the learned Single Judge further relied on Atul Hazra v. Uma Charan, AIR 1916 Cal 339, Maung Kan v. Maung Po Tok, AIR 1939 Rang 388 and Beniprasad v. Manaklal, AIR 1953 Nag 9.