Mangal And Anr. vs Mathura Prasad And Ors. on 5 November, 1934
363. followed in Ram Sarup v. Dalpat Rai 1921 All.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)Documents citing
Ram Sarup vs Dalpat Rai And Ors. on 15 June, 1920
Chaitanya Das Banerjee vs Ranjit Pal Chowdhury And Ors. on 6 August, 1937
This is the interpretation that has now been accepted by all the High Courts-in India, with the exception of the Lahore High Court: Ram Sarup v. Dalpat Rai AIR 1921 All 377, Tirumalaisami v. Subramaniyam Chettiar AIR 1918 Mad 353, Balavant Ranganath v. Bala Halu AIR 1922 Bom 205, Juranu v. Jathi AIR 1918 Cal 148, Banka Behari Das v. Gurudas Dhar , Rishikesh Law v. Manik Molla AIR 1926 Cal 971 and Kameawar Singh v. Bensidhar Marwari AIR 1937 Pat 532.
Raja Rishee Case Law vs Manik Molla And Ors. on 23 March, 1926
712 Ram Sarup v. Dalpat Rai 58 Ind. Cas. 105 ; 43 A. 60 ; 18 A.L.J. 905 : 2 U.P.L.R. (A.)
Amal Chandra Banerjee vs Ram Swarup Agarwalla on 4 January, 1939
85 and a similar view was adopted by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Sarup v. Dalpat Rai Reported in (1921) 8 A.I.R. All. 377 in which the learned Judges accepted the position that, outside the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, an auction-purchaser has no right to recover his purchase money merely by showing that the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest.
Satish Chandra And Anr. vs Jwala Prasad And Anr. on 20 March, 1950
4. It was for the first time in the year 1877, that a statutory right was given to the auction purchaser to recover back his purchase money if the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest whatsoever in the property auctioned. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1877 in this behalf were repeated in the Code of 1882 and it was held in cases arising while those Codes were in force that .the remedy of the auction purchaser was not confined only to am application to the executing Court but that he could recover the amount by a suit also. The Code of 1908 has materially altered the law on this point. The history of the legislative changes is fully set out in Ram Sarup v. Dalpat Rai, 43 ALL. 60 : (A. I. R. (8) 1921 ALL.
Bindeshri Prasad Tiwari vs Badal Singh And Ors. on 2 February, 1923
4. The courts below dismissed the application. Both courts have held that Section 47 is inapplicable, and the lower appellate court has held on the authority of Ram Sarup v. Dalpat Rai (1920) I.L.R. 43 All. 60 that no separate suit to recover the amount could be entertained. We think that the ruling in question is clearly distinguishable. That was a case in which property was sold in execution of a simple money decree. A third party subsequently came forward and claimed that the property which had been sold belonged to him and not to the judgment-debtor. His suit was decreed and the auction-purchaser was deprived of the property. The ruling relies on the principles that there is no warranty of title at an auction sale, and that what was sold was merely the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor and that the purchaser took the risk that the judgment-debtor's title might turn out to be defective. No, question was ever raised, or could be raised, as to the validity of the decree under which the sale was held. Here the facts are altogether different. Ram Bujharat claimed and obtained a declaration that not merely the sale but the decree and the mortgage on which it was based were void and of no effect as against him. The decree-holders have, therefore, obtained from the auction-purchaser, under an invalid decree, money to which they have no right, and there is a clear equity in favour of the purchaser entitling him to recover it back. It is a well established principle that the auction-purchaser is not bound to look beyond the decree. If a decree is in existence he is entitled to assume that it is a valid decree.
Salig Ram Misir vs Lachhman Das on 7 June, 1927
114 and Ram Sarup v. Dalpat Rai A.I.R. 1921 All. 377, the last case having been decided by a Bench of which one of us was a member. After some conflict of opinion in the other High Courts, all the High Courts in India have now come to the conclusion that no such separate remedy is available to an auction-purchaser.
Sahu Deputy Shankar vs Mangal Sen And Anr. on 27 May, 1932
That ruling was followed by another Bench of this Court in Ram Sarup v. Dalpat Rai A.I.R. 1921 All 377.
Banka Behari Das vs Guru Das Dhar on 19 July, 1923
2. With regard to the first question, the learned Vakil for the appellant has placed before us all the cases decided by the different High Courts with reference to sales held after the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 came into operation. He admits that the general view is that such suits are not maintainable. It is only necessary to refer to the latest cases, which are Ram Sarup v. Dalpat Rai 68 Ind. Cas. 105: 43 A. 60 : 18 A.L.J. 905 : 2 U.P.L.R. (A.)
Banka Behary Das vs Gurdas Dhar And Anr. on 19 July, 1923
1. The plaintiff, who was the auction-purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree for rent, sued both the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor for refund of the purchase money and also for compensation on certain allegations made in the plaint. The suit was decreed in the primary Court against both the defendants. On appeal by the decree-holder defendant, the learned Judge has dismissed the suit holding that it was not maintainable. The plaintiff appeals to this Court and two questions have been raised on his behalf : (1) - Whether a suit for refund of purchase money is maintainable by the auction-purchaser on the ground that the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest in the land and (2) whether the suit is maintainable on the ground of fraud of the defendants. With regard to the first question, the learned Vakil for the appellant has placed before us all the cases decided by the different High Courts with reference to sales held after the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 came into operation. He admits that the general view is that such suits are not maintainable. It is only necessary to refer to the latest cases which are Ram Sarup v. Dalpat Rai A.I.R. 1921 All.
1