Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It is not disputed that after the institution of Suit No. 2024 of 1952 in the High Court, the Official Receiver was appointed as Receiver in respect of the disputed property on 11.8.1953 and that he took possession of the same on 13.8.1953 and it continues to be in custodia legis through the Receiver since then. This has been found by Monjula Bose, J. in the order dated 18.7.1983. When the property is in custodia legis neither Malati Das nor Jitendra Kumar Das, who may have rights of ownership in the property, could grant any licence in 1975 or at any time after the Receiver had been appointed and possession had been taken in August 1953. Even if there was such a grant of licence it is invalid in law. Even if possession of the property had been obtained by respondents 1 to 4 pursuant to any such grant of licence it would, in law, be only that of trespassers. Therefore, even on the admitted case of respondents 1 to 4 that their possession started in 1975 as licencees, in the light of the undisputed fact that the Receiver got into possession of the property as far back as in August 1953 under the orders of the Court, the possession of respondents 1 to 4 could only be that of trespassers. They are trespassers who are liable to be committed for contempt of the Court inasmuch as they are trespassers in respect of the property which is in custodia legis. Their possession and conduct have to be frowned upon by the Court and not treated as grounds for conferring a benefit on them to purchase the property albeit for a higher amount than the amount for which the Official Receiver has agreed to sell the property to the appellant with the approval of the parties to the suit. The learned Judges of the Division Bench have treated this illegal act of trespass of respondents 1 to 4 on the property which is in custodia legis as the ground for conferring the benefit on them in the name of social justice, and it is this order which Mr. Sanghi, with all his vehemence, wants this Court to confirm. In my view it will be totally wrong to do so. It was conceded by Mr. Sanghi that while rendering social justice no violence to any established and well-known principles of law could be committed. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that no relief could be granted to respondents 1 to 4 who are trespassers in respect of the property in custodia legis on the basis of their wrongful possession which is a continuing act of contempt of the Court.

Mr. Sanghi next submitted that respondents 1 to 4 have offered Rs. 5,00,000 for the disputed property and that since the owners of the property stand to gain a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 by accepting that offer, the order for sale of the property made by the learned Judges of the Division Bench in favour of the respondents 1 to 4 and their 34 nominees should be confirmed.

Respondents 1 to 4 are trespassers in respect of the property which is in custoda legis and they are in contempt of the Court. They cannot be allowed to continue to be in contempt and urge it as a ground for obtaining the benefit of the sale of the property in their favour. If the appellant has not complied with any condition it may be a ground for the owners and the Official Receiver not to accept his offer and refuse to sell the property to him and not for respondents 1 to 4 to raise any objection. The offer has been accepted rightly or wrongly more than once and therefore the appellant may have a right to sue for specific performance of the contract on the basis of that acceptance by the Official Receiver given with the approval of the parties. The same is the position in regard to the delay of about a month in paying the balance of Rs. 3,00,000 by the appellant. In Kayjay Industries (P) Ltd. v. Asnew Drums (P) Ltd. & Others it has been held that the executing court had committed no material irregularity in the conduct of the sale in accepting the highest offer and concluding the sale at Rs. 11,50,000 though the market value of the property may be over Rs. 17,00,000. Jibon Krishna Mukherjee v. New Bheerbhum Coal Co. Ltd. & Anr. it has been held that the sale held by the Receiver appointed by the Court is not governed by the provisions of Order 21 rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure which enables the persons specified in sub-rule 1 to have the sale held in execution proceedings set aside on the two conditions therein mentioned being satisfied, namely, as regards the deposit of poundage, balance of decree amount due etc. In that case, as in the present case, the Receiver was given liberty to sell the property by private treaty or by public auction. In Tarinikamal Pandit & Others v. Prafulla Kumar Chatterjee we find the following observation :