RAVINDRANATH Vs. PANNA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Satte-pe-satta or double wager of the auction-purchaser, it is seriously complained by appellants, has perverted judicial process. He has withdrawn the purchase-money. Decree-holder has been paid off. Why auction-purchasers' unjust enrichment must take place under a defunct judicial writ ?

(2.) Contentions aforesaid are pivotal and common to the decision to be rendered in the two appeals and indeed for the self-same reason the appeals are heard analogously though the older one, S.A. No. 107 of 1975, raises other important questions of law also and is, therefore, being treated first. It arises out of a suit, instituted on 3-5-65, praying, inter alia, for a declaration that the house "Shobha Bhawan" attached in Execution Case No. 67 of 1960 of the court of Civil Judge, Morena, was not liable to be sold in public auction and that attachment and auction sale of that house were illegal, inoperative in law and void.

(3.) During last twenty-seven years of travail the journey which parties have made to his court was not made on boulevard only. Lanes and alleys which parties crossed are to be revisited also for appreciating and disposing of rival contentions. The appeals were heard in part, in instalments, and on 22-7-1987, relying on Apex Court's rulings when oral prayer was made for an opportunity being given to make appropriate application to bring on record relevant facts, I had no hesitation to grant the prayer. However, I directed copies of any document filed to be served on respondents' counsel and an opportunity to file reply was also given. From both sides have come, accordingly, on record, facts and chansmatic events in the form of additional evidence, comprising mainly of records of judicial proceedings. Indeed, documents filed by appellants' counsel are certified copies of applications made and orders passed in execution proceedings.