TAKASEELA PEDDA SUBBA REDDY v. PUJARI PADMAVATHAMMA & ORS.
Citation: [1977] 3 S.C.R. 692; 1977 INSC 134
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI , S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
Judgment date:
Case summary
1977 INSC 134. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1977-04-28. TAKASEELA PEDDA SUBBA REDDY v. PUJARI PADMAVATHAMMA & ORS. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 3 S. C. R. TAKASEELA PEDDA SUBBA REDDY v. PUJARI PADMAVATHAMMA & ORS. April 28, 1977 [P. N. BHAGWAT! AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ. ] Code of Civil Procedure, (Act V ·of 1908), 1908-0rdcr X){J, Rule 64--- Scope of-. Meaning of the words "as 1nny seieni necessary to satisfy the decree". Order XXI Rule 64 of the C. P. C. lays down that "nny court executing a decree may order that any property attached by it and liable to sale or such portion thercot as 1nay sei~1n 11ecessary to satisfy the decree, shall be sold and that the proceeds of such sale, or a sufficient portion thereof shall be paid to the party entitled under the decree to receiYe the same. "' The 5th respondent/decree-holder, S. P. R. Reddy obtained two decrees against the Judgment-debtor Pujari Subbarayudu in two suits viz. ; 0. S. 15 of 1949 and O. S. 19 of 1953. He filed execution proceeding, No. 24 of 1953 in the trial Court for selling the .
properties belonging to the judgment-debtor in Devanoor and Gudipadu vilJages in order to satisfy the decree in 0. S. 15 of 1949. He also applied for permission to bid- at the auction sale. In the auction sale held on March 2, 1955, the 5th respondent purchased the lands situated in village Devanoor for a sun1 of Rs. 16,880/-. Despite the fact that the- sale proceeds of the land'i in village Devanoor alone was sufficient to satisfy the decretal amount mentioned in the warrant of sale and the proclamation of sale viz. ; Rs. 16,715. 50, the Court proceeded to sell the properties of the judgment-debtor in village Gudipadu which fetched Rs . . 12,500/- and \Vhich were purchased by the appellant auction-purchaser. The jUdgment-debtor filed an application on March 31,.
1955 to set aside the sale contending, inter alia, that once the sale of the properties in village Devanoor ~'as sufficient to satisfy the amount mentioned in the sale proclamation, the Court should have stopped the sale as required by the mandatory provisions of Order XX! Rule 64 of the C. P. C. The Trial Court rejected the said application; whereupon the decree-holder on April 20, 1955 obtained an order from the court for rateable distribution of the sale proceeds. fn appeal the High Cou1t accepted the plea of the judgment-debtor regarding non-complianCc with the provisions of 0. XXI Rule 64 C. P. C. and set aside the sale ~'ith respect to the properties situated in village Gudipadu. Dismissing the appeal by certificate the .
court, HELD : ( 1) The High Court rightly held that as the sale of the properties in village Devanoor fetched an aniount mentioned in the sale warrant, the Executing Court was not ju~tified in proceeding with the sale of the propert_ies in village Gudipadu and should have stoppe~ the sale. [694 F] (2) The logical corollary which flows from O. XXI Rule 64 of the Co ale of further items of the properties. It is manifest that where the amount specified in the proclamation of sale for the recovery of which the sale was ordered is realised by sale of certain items, Jhe sale of fur lher items should be stopped. This, in our opinion, is the logical corollary which flows from 0. 21 r.
64 of the Code which may be extracted thus : "Any Court executing a decree may order that any property attached by it and liable to sale, or such portion thereof as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree, shall be sold, and that the proceeds of such sale, or a sufficient portion thereof, shall be paid to the party entitled under the decree to receive the same. " Under this provision the Executing Court derives jurisdiction to sell properties attached only to the point at which the decree is fully satisfied. The words "necessary to satisfy the decree" clearly indicate lhat no sale can be allowed beyond the decretal amount mentioned in the sale proclamation. In other words, where the sale fetches a price equal to or higher than the amount mentioned in the sale proclamation and is suf! iclent to satisfy the decree, no further sale should be held and the Court should stop at that stage.
In the instant case, we have already indicated that the sale of lands in village Devanoor alone fetched sum of Rs. 16880 which was more than sufficient to satisfv the amount of Rs, 16,715-8-0 mentioned in the sale proclamation. It is true that the decree-holder had obtained another decree in O. S. No. 19 of 1953, but there is nothing to show that the decree-holder had approached the Court for including the second decretal amount in the proclamation of sale. In these circumstances, therefore, we are clearly of the opinion that the Executing Court was not justified, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in selling the properties situated in village Gudipadu. The fact that the iudgment-debtor did not raise an objection on this ground before the Executing Court is not sufficient to put him out of Court because this was a matter which went to the very root of the jurisdiction of the Executing Court to sell the properties and the non-compliance with the provisions of 0. 21 r.
64 of the Code was sufficient to vitiate the same so far as the "A properties situated in village Gudipadu were concerned. For these .. reasons, the contentions raised by counsel for the appel. lant must be overruled. This, however, does not put an end to the issue, because the High Court, while setting aside the sale, has passed no order for ~d justing the equities between the parties. According to the appellant he had taken possession of the properties purchased by him at the auction sale and had made substantial improvements. If the sale of these properties is to be set aside, the appellant will have to return these properties to the judgment-debtor, but he will be entitled to receive the value of improvement's made by him during the time he was in possession of those properties in addition to the return of the sum of Rs. 12,500/-. The Executing Court will have to hold au inquiry into the matter and de'.
ermine the value of the improvements made by the appellant which will have to be paid to him. The appellant will not be entitled to any interest on the value of the improvements if he is found to be in possession of the properties. If, however, the Executing Court finds that the auction-purchaser was not in possessio11 ot the properties and the properties continued to be in possession of the judgment-debtor, then the question of the value of improvements will naturally not arise. 'In that event the judgment-debtor will have to refund the amount of Rs. 12,500/- to the appellant with interest' at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of sale upto the date of refund. For these reasons, . therefore, the appeal is dismissed with the modification indicated above and the case is sent back to the Executing Court to hold an inquiry into the matter. In the special and peculiar circumstances of the present case, we make no order as to costs. S. R. Appeal dismissed.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.