NELLIKKOTIU KOLLERIYIL MAD HAVI v. KAVAKKALATHIL KALIKUTIY AND ORS.
vidhipandit.com/case/sc-s-1996-9-385-386
Decision dates shown here are day-precision where the judgment's own text states a date the extractor is confident in, and year only otherwise -- never a fabricated day. See the editorial policy for how dates are extracted.
Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)
Reporter's headnote (continued) and case details
NOVEMBER 29, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVAT!, JJ.] B
Auction sale-Respondents purchased the property in execution of decrees-Sale certificate issued to them and possession of property also given to them-Thereafter respondents assigned the schedule prope1ty to plain- tiff-Respondents seeking pe1petua/ injunction restraining appellant from in- C terfering with possession-Trial Court and Appellate Court accepted the case of appellant-High Cowt held that there was non-consideration of mate1ia/ evidence by Courts be/ow-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held, non-con- sideration of the material evidence is a substantial question of /aw-The perpetual injunction granted by the High Court in the second appeal is not vitiated by any eTTor of law much less substantial question of law waTTanting D interference.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 15612 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.5.93 of the Kerala High E Court in S.A. No. 368 of 1989.
K. Sukumaran, Ms. Baby Krishnan and N. Sudhakaran, for the appellant.
M.P. Vinod for the Respondents. F
Judgment
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. G This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of the Kerala High Court dated May 24, 1993, made in SA No. 368 of 1989. The respondents had purchased the Plaint Schedule property in execution of the decrees in OS No.262/1955 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff, Parappanangadi. The sale cerificate, Exh. A-2 dated January 28, H 385
p. 386
A 1958 was given to the respondents. They had also filed an application for delivery of possession of the property which had come to be delivered under Ex. A-3 dated 21.7.1961. After taking delivery of the possession on October 20, 1961, they assigned the plaint Schedule property to the plain- tiff. Under those circumstances, the question arises: whether they are entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with his possession? Though the trial Court and the appellate Court had accepted the case of the appellant, the High Court has pointed out that aforesaid documents are material for deciding the controversy and the courts below had not considered those documents in proper perspec- tive. Accordingly, in second appeal, the High Court has gone into that question. It is settled law that the person who purchases the property in a court auction sale, gets title to the property by sale certificate issued by the court as true owner and after confirmation of the sale, he gets possession thereof. In view of the fact that Plaint Schedule property was delivered to Sankaran under Ex. A-3 on July 21, 1961, he lawfully came into possession and the same was delivered in turn to the plaintiffs. Non-consideration of the material evidence is a substantial question of law.
Under these circumstances, the perpetual injunction granted by the High Court in the second appeal is not vitiated by any error of law much less substantial question of law warranting interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. If the appellant has got any title independent of this, it is open to him to have the right established in accordance with law.
T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.
Report an error in this judgment →
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0