Case Note & Summary
This appeal by special leave arose from the judgment and decree of the Kerala High Court dated May 24, 1993, passed in Second Appeal No. 368 of 1989. The dispute concerned a civil suit for perpetual injunction restraining interference with possession of the plaint schedule property. The respondents before the Supreme Court were the original plaintiffs, while the appellant was the defendant against whom the injunction was sought. The factual background showed that the respondents purchased the plaint schedule property in execution of decrees in Original Suit No. 262 of 1955 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff, Parappanangadi. A sale certificate, Exhibit A-2, dated January 28, 1958, was issued to the respondents. They applied for delivery of possession, and possession was delivered under Exhibit A-3 dated July 21, 1963, though the judgment later refers to delivery to Sankaran on July 21, 1961. After taking delivery of possession on October 20, 1961, they assigned the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. Subsequently, a dispute arose regarding possession, leading to the suit for perpetual injunction. The trial court and the first appellate court accepted the appellant's case, apparently rejecting the plaintiffs' claim. However, the High Court, in second appeal, found that the lower courts had not considered material documents, namely the sale certificate and delivery receipt, in proper perspective. The High Court reappreciated the evidence and granted a decree of perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The core legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the High Court erred in interfering in second appeal and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to perpetual injunction on the strength of the court auction sale and delivery of possession. The Supreme Court observed that it is settled law that a person who purchases property in a court auction sale gets title to the property by the sale certificate issued by the court as true owner and, after confirmation of the sale, gets possession thereof. Since the plaint schedule property was delivered to Sankaran under Exhibit A-3 on July 21, 1961, he lawfully came into possession, and the same was delivered in turn to the plaintiffs. The Court further held that non-consideration of material evidence is a substantial question of law, and therefore the High Court was justified in interfering in the second appeal. The perpetual injunction granted by the High Court was not vitiated by any error of law, much less a substantial question of law warranting interference. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It clarified that if the appellant had any title independent of the transaction, it was open to him to have that right established in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Not mentioned - The High Court set aside concurrent findings of lower courts on the ground that material documents (sale certificate and delivery receipt) were not considered in proper perspective; non-consideration of material evidence is a substantial question of law - Held: High Court's reappreciation and grant of perpetual injunction did not suffer from any error of law warranting interference. B) Property Law - Court Auction Sale - Title and Possession - Not mentioned - A purchaser in a court auction sale acquires title through the sale certificate issued by the court as true owner and, after confirmation of sale, obtains possession; the sale certificate dated January 28, 1958 and delivery of possession to Sankaran on July 21, 1961 conferred lawful possession which was assigned to the plaintiff - Held: plaintiff is entitled to decree of perpetual injunction restraining interference.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in interfering in second appeal on the ground of non-consideration of material evidence and granting a decree of perpetual injunction.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court's decree of perpetual injunction upheld; appellant permitted to establish independent title in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Person purchasing property in court auction sale gets title by sale certificate issued by court as true owner
- after confirmation of sale
- he gets possession
- non-consideration of material evidence is a substantial question of law.
