Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surupinder Singh vs Harjit Kaur And Others on 8 August, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CR No. 4130 of 2004 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No. 4130 of 2004 (O&M)
Date of decision: August 8, 2013.
Surupinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Harjit Kaur and others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present: Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. HR Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for respondents No. 1 to 4.
Mr. Anupam Bansal, Advocate,
for respondents No. 5 to 10.
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
The revision is against the summary rejection of an objection taken at the execution stage in a petition for ejectment in favour of the decree-holder. The objection was taken by a third party by filing an application under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC, contending that he had been a purchaser of court auction sale held on 8.5.2001 in a suit filed against the judgment-debtor by his wife and children. The suit was said to have been instituted at the instance of the wife and children claiming maintenance against Kaka Singh. Pursuant to the sale, the third party obtained a sale certificate on 9.5.2002 and took possession of the property on 1.6.2002 from the legal representatives of Kaka Singh, who had died by the time when the objection was brought by the said purchaser.
A purchaser in court auction gets the right, title and interest vested in the judgment-debtor and the court auction sale gives no warranty of title. What could pass in court auction sale is the right, title and interest Singh Prem 2013.08.23 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CR No. 4130 of 2004 2 of the judgment debtor. (See Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahemdabad Vs. Haji Abdulgafur Haji Hussenbhai (1971) 1 SCC
757). There is also a considerable body of authorities that hold that in court auction sales, there is no warranty of title (See Sabapatthy Pillai Versus Thand Varoya Udapar 1920 (11) Mad LW 108). The remedy of the court auction purchaser shall be either to set aside sale under Order 21 Rule 92 CPC or sue the judgment debtor for damages (See V. Macha Komdan Versus Kotlora Koudan (1933) 42 Mad LW 866).
If Kaka Singh himself was not an owner and was only a tenant and he had suffered an order of ejectment, a sale brought in respect of the property in possession, as though Kaka Singh was the owner, secured to the auction purchaser no more right than the judgment-debtor had. If the judgment-debtor had a right as tenant and that had been sold, their resistance could have been only in capacity as such tenant. If the judgment- debtor had suffered a decree for eviction then enforcement of the right of possession by the landlord in execution of the decree for ejectment can not be persisted by a person claiming under the judgment-debtor. It is irrelevant that such a third party who was causing obstruction did not know that the judgment-debtor did not have the title to the property. The decree passed against the judgment-debtor was, therefore, to be proceeded further and the court was justified in making summary rejection of the objection taken by the third party.
Counsel for the petitioner expresses his consternation that a court auction purchaser is ultimately left high and dry having suffered by a huge financial loss by court auction. His remedy will be against the heirs of the Kaka Singh to the extent to which the heirs have inherited any other Singh Prem 2013.08.23 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CR No. 4130 of 2004 3 estate of Kaka Singh. These observations are merely to show a way that the objector could have no relief in the decree of ejectment.
I find no reason for interference with the order already passed and the Civil Revision is dismissed.
August 8, 2013 (K.KANNAN)
prem JUDGE
Singh Prem
2013.08.23 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh