Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (0.56 seconds)
T.Muthukumarasamy vs J.Selvasundarraj on 3 March, 2017 cites

Pattam Khader Khan vs Pattam Sardar Khan & Anr on 9 July, 1996

In Pattam Khader Khan v. Pattem Sardar Khan and Anr. (1996 (5) SCC 48) this court held that it is not from the date when sale certificate is issued that the limitation starts running. The sale becomes absolute on confirmation under Order XXI Rule 92 of the Code effectively passing title. It cannot be said to attain finality only when sale certificate is issued under Order XXI Rule 94. There can be variety of factors conceivable for which delay can be caused in issuing a sale certificate. The period of one year limitation now prescribed under Article 134 of the Limitation Act in substitution of a three year period prescribed under Article 180 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 is reflective of the legislative policy of finalizing proceedings in execution as quickly as possible by providing a quick forum to the auction purchaser to ask for the delivery of possession of the property purchased within that period from the date of the sale becoming absolute rather than from the date of issuance of the sale certificate. On his failure to avail such a quick remedy the law relegates him to the remedy of a regular suit for possession based on title, subject again to limitation.?
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 49 - M M Punchhi - Full Document

Balakrishnan vs Malaiyandi Konar on 17 February, 2006

26.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has thus permitted the auction purchaser who failed to file an application in time for delivery to file a suit. Hence, the issue is no more res integra with regard to the second question of law also. The above judgment was followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balakrishnan v. Malaiyandi Konar reported in 2006 (3) SCC 49 and it has been held as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 61 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next