WWW.LIVELAW.

IN

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4557 OF 2012

DIPALI BISWAS  & ORS.                                       ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

NIRMALENDU MUKHERJEE & ORS.                   …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. Challenging the order of the High Court confirming the order

of the Executing Court dismissing their application under Section

47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as

the   ‘Code’),   the   legal  representatives  of the  judgment­debtor   have

come   up   with   the   above   appeal.   Incidentally,   this   litigation   is

exactly half a century old (it started with a suit filed in 1971) and

this appeal arises out of the fifth round of litigation at the stage of

execution of a simple money decree and we wish that it is the knock

out round.  
1

LL 2021 SC 538
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

2. We   have   heard   Mr.   Rauf   Rahim,   learned   counsel   for   the

appellants, and Mr. Raja Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for

the respondent nos.1­7/auction purchasers.

3. One  Ms. Rama Rani Devi, filed a simple suit for recovery of

money   in   Money   Suit   No.16   of   1971   on   the   file   of   the   District

Munsif Court, Bongaon, District 24 Parganas, West Bengal, against

one Sasadhar Biswas, for recovery of a sum of Rs.3000/­. The suit

was decreed ex parte on 25.07.1974, directing the defendant to pay

the decretal amount in six equal instalments with a default clause.

4. Since the decree was not honoured, the decree holder filed an

execution petition in Execution Case No.2 of 1975, praying for the

attachment   and   sale   of   17   decimal   of   land   (approximately   about

7450   Sq.ft.)   in   Plot   No.26/159   under   Khatian   No.2555   of   Mouza

Bongaon.   It   appears   that   a   sale   proclamation   was   issued   by   the

executing   court   on   16.07.1975  after   which  Sasadhar   Biswas,  the

Judgment­debtor filed an application in Miscellaneous Case No.151

of   1975   assailing   the   sale   proclamation   issued   by   the   executing

court,   on   the   ground   of   material   irregularity   and   fraud.   But   the

same was dismissed on 03.09.1975.
2

LL 2021 SC 538
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

5. An   auction   sale   was   held   on   30.05.1979,   in   which   two

brothers   by   name,   Sachindra   Nath   Mukherjee   and   Dulal   Kanti

Mukherjee became the highest bidders, they having offered a sum

of Rs.5500/­, as the highest bid amount. The highest bidders also

deposited the money into court.

First round

6. Mr.   Sasadhar   Biswas,   the   judgment­debtor   then   filed   an

application   on   27.06.1979   under   Order   XXI,   Rule   90   read   with

Section 152 of the Code praying for setting aside the auction sale on

the   ground   of   irregularities   in   the   sale   proclamation.   During   the

pendency of this petition in Miscellaneous Case No.47 of 1979, the

judgment­debtor   Sasadhar   Biswas   entered   into   a   compromise   on

19.07.1980,   not   with   the   decree   holder   but   with   the   auction

purchasers.  The memo of compromise reads as follows:­

“The petitioner and the auction purchaser Opp. party do
settle the suit mutually in the following manner.

1)     If the petitioner debtor pays the entire money due to the
auction purchaser opposite part in cash within 15 th December
or if he deposits it in their credit in the court and the auction
shall   be   revoked   and   the   original   execution   case   shall   be
disposed on full satisfaction. 

LL 2021 SC 538
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

2)    Otherwise that is if the petitioner debtor does not pay the
entire money due to the auction purchaser opposite party in
cash within 15th  December on deposits that amount in court
within that date then the said auction shall remain effective
and this present suit shall be dismissed with costs.

    Hence it is prayed that according to the contents of this
solenama   and   for   compliance   with   the   conditions   of   the
solenama the final date of this suit may be kept on 16.12.80
on the expiry of the 15th December.”

7. It is relevant to point out that the amount of money deposited

by the auction purchasers into court was Rs.5500/­, but the decree

debt was around Rs.3360/­. Though the compromise memo entered

into by the   judgment­debtor with the auction purchasers did not

refer   to   the   decree   debt,   but   repeatedly   mentioned   the   words,

“entire money due to the auction purchasers”, the judgment­debtor

admittedly   deposited   on   15.12.1980,   only   a   sum   of   Rs.3700/­,

purportedly on the basis of the calculation provided by the court

officer in terms of Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Code.

8. Since the deadline for payment of the entire money due to the

auction   purchasers   expired   on   15.12.1980   and   also   since   the

judgment­debtor deposited only a sum of Rs.3700/­, as against the

amount   of   Rs.5500/­   deposited   by   the   auction   purchasers,   the

LL 2021 SC 538
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

executing court dismissed the application under Order XXI, Rule 90

in Miscellaneous Case No.47 of 1979.

9. But   within   four   days,   the   executing   court   again   passed   an

order   on   20.12.1980   recalling   the   order   dated   16.12.1980   and

recording full satisfaction in the execution. Shocked at this order,

the   auction   purchasers   filed   an   application   on   22.12.1980   for

recalling   the   order   dated   20.12.1980,   passed   purportedly   behind

their back. This application was dismissed by the executing court

on   12.09.1981.   Challenging   the   said   order   dated   12.09.1981,

passed   by   the   executing   court,   the   auction   purchasers   filed   a

revision in C.R.No.3577 of 1981 on the file of the High Court. The

High Court allowed the revision by an order dated 21.06.1983 and

remanded the matter back to the executing court, for re­hearing the

application of the auction purchasers for recall of the order dated

20.12.1980.

10. The   executing   court   passed   a   fresh   order   dated   11.07.1987

rejecting the application of the auction purchasers on merits, but

this   order   was   set   aside   by   the   High   Court   in   a   revision   in

C.O.No.2487 of 1987, by an order dated 20.12.1990. By this order

LL 2021 SC 538
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

the High Court held that the judgment­debtor failed to honour the

commitment made in the compromise memo to deposit the entire

amount   due   to   the   auction   purchasers   and   that   therefore   the

auction   sale   should   be   confirmed   in   favour   of   the   auction

purchasers.   It   may   be   relevant   to   extract   Clause   No.4   of   the

operative portion of the order of the High Court in C.O. No.2487 of

1987 dated 20.12.1990.  It reads as follows:­

 “xxx            xxx           xxx                       xxx

4.     None of the parties shall have any claim whatsoever as
against   the   applicant   in   respect   of   the   purchased   property
which   shall   be   deemed   to   be   his   absolute   property   on   and
from the expiry of 15th December, 1980.” 

11. Thereafter, a mention was made before the learned judge, on

behalf of the counsel for the judgment­debtor seeking recall of the

order in C.O.No.2487 of 1987 on the ground that the counsel was

not   present   at   the   time   of   disposal   of   the   revision   petition.

Therefore, the leaned Judge again heard the matter and passed a

detailed   order   dated   08.08.1991,   reiterating   his   earlier   order.   A

special leave petition filed against the order dated 08.08.1991, in

SLP(C)No.18092   of   1991   was   dismissed   by   this   Court   on

24.02.1992. The judgment­debtor moved a petition for review before
6

LL 2021 SC 538
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

this Court but the same was also dismissed on 12.08.1992. Thus,

the 1st round of litigation kicked off with an application under Order

XXI, Rule 90, in the year 1979, came to an end in 1992.

Second Round

12. The judgment­debtor then started the 2 nd round by filing a suit

in suit No.249 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, Bongaon,

for a declaration that the auction sale is void but the said suit was

dismissed as abated, on 02.12.1992.

Third Round

13. In the meantime, the auction purchasers filed petitions for the

issue   of   sale   certificate   and   the   judgment­debtor   filed   a   petition

under Order XXI, Rule 29 for stay of execution proceedings. But the

application   of   the   judgment­debtor   was   dismissed   and   the

applications   of   the   auction   purchasers   were   allowed   by   the

executing   court   by   an   order   dated   31.01.1994.   A   direction   was

given for the issue of a sale certificate to the auction purchasers in

terms   of   Order   XXI,   Rule   94.   Accordingly,   a   sale   certificate   was

issued on 08.02.1994. The sale certificate was also duly registered.

LL 2021 SC 538
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

14. Challenging   the   order   dated   31.01.1994   passed   by   the

executing court directing the issue of sale certificate, the judgment­

debtor filed a revision in C.O.No.1232 of 1994 on the file of the High

Court. Though the High Court entertained the revision and initially

granted   a   stay   of   further   proceedings   in   the   execution,   the   High

Court eventually dismissed the revision petition by an order dated

05.09.2001 holding that the earlier order in C.O.No.2487 of 1987

dated 08.08.1991 had already clinched the issue.  With this order,

the third round came to an end.

Fourth Round

15. The   4th  round   began   with   an   application   by   the   auction

purchasers   seeking   delivery   of   possession.   This   application   was

allowed by the executing court on 15.03.2002, directing delivery to

be effected by 16.04.2002. Since the judgment­debtor had, in the

meantime, constructed a building on the land sold in execution of

the decree, the executing court directed the building so constructed

illegally, to be demolished.

16. The order of the executing court for delivery of possession was

challenged by the appellants herein (the legal representatives of the
8

LL 2021 SC 538
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

judgment­debtor)   in   a   Civil   Petition   No.106   of   2002   before   the

Additional   District   Judge,   Barasat.   The   same   was   dismissed   on

26.02.2003.   This   order   was   challenged   before   the   High   Court   in

C.O.No.1276   of   2003,   but   the   same   was   dismissed   by   the   High

Court by an order dated 11.02.2005 pointing out that the issue has

already   been   clinched   by   the   previous   orders.   The   special   leave

petition SLP(C) No.12925 of 2005 filed against the said order, was

dismissed by this Court on 18.07.2005. The petition seeking review

of the said order was also dismissed by this Court on 10.01.2006.

Thus, the fourth round of litigation came to a close.

Fifth Round (present round)

17. Not to be put off by repeated failures, the appellants herein,

like   the   tireless  Vikramaditya,  (who   made   repeated   attempts   to

capture   ‘Betal’)   started   the   present   round   (hopefully   the   final

round), by moving a petition in Miscellaneous Case No.15 of 2006

before   the   executing   court   under  Section  47   of   the   Code,   on   the

ground that the mandate of Order XXI Rule 64 was not followed in

the   auction   and   that   therefore  a   jurisdictional   error   has   crept  in

and that the same could be corrected at any point of time and at
9

LL 2021 SC 538
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

any stage of the proceeding. This petition filed on 10.02.2006 was

dismissed by the executing court by an order dated 20.01.2007.

18. Challenging the said order dismissing their application under

Section 47, the appellants filed a revision in C.O. No.1115 of 2007

on the file of the High Court. This revision was dismissed by the

High Court by an order dated 28.03.2008, on the ground that the

issue,   never   having   been   raised   earlier,   cannot   be   allowed   to   be

raised at this distance of time. It is against the said order of the

High Court dated 28.03.2008, in C.O.No.1115 of 2007 that the legal

representatives   of   the   judgment­debtor   have   come   up   with   the

above appeal.

Contentions and our analysis

19. The   only  mantra,   by   the   recitation   of   which,   the   appellants

hope to succeed in this half­a­century old litigation, is Order XXI,

Rule 64 of the Code. This provision enables an executing court to

order  “that any property attached by it  and  liable to sale or such

portion thereof as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree, shall be

sold and that the proceeds of such sale or a sufficient portion thereof

10

LL 2021 SC 538
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

shall be  paid  to the  party entitled  under the  decree  to receive  the

same”.

20. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants

that Order XXI, Rule 64 casts not a discretion, but an obligation, to

sell only such portion of the property as may be sufficient to satisfy

the decree. In support of this proposition, the learned counsel for

the appellants cited a few decisions, which we shall now deal with.

In Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddi vs.  Pujari Padmavathamma

&   Ors1,   this   Court   held   that   the,   “executing   court   derives

jurisdiction to sell properties attached, only to the point at which the

decree is fully satisfied”, and that the words, “necessary to satisfy

the decree”, clearly indicate that no sale can be allowed beyond the

decretal   amount   mentioned   in   the   sale   proclamation.   This   Court

went further to hold that the issue flowing out of Order XXI, Rule

64 goes to the very root of the jurisdiction of the executing court

and that therefore the fact that an objection in this regard was not

raised before the executing court is not sufficient to put him out of

court.

1 (1977) 3 SCC 337

11

LL 2021 SC 538
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

21. But   the   aforesaid   decision   arose   out   of   a   case   where   the

decretal   amount   for   which   the   properties   were   to   be   sold   was

mentioned   in   the   warrant   of   sale   and   sale   proclamation   as

Rs.16,715/­.   The   lands   in   two   villages   namely  Devanoor  and

Gudipadu  were   brought   to   sale.   The   sale   of   lands   in   one   village

alone fetched Rs.16,880/­. Yet the executing court proceeded to sell

the lands in Gudipadu also. It is in that context that this Court held

as aforesaid.  

22. The   decision   in  Ambati   Narasayya   vs   M.   Subha   Rao   &

Anr2, while following T.P. Subba Reddi (supra), went a step further

and held that if the property is large and the decree to be satisfied

is small, the court must bring only such portion of the property, the

proceeds of which would be sufficient to satisfy the decree debt and

that it is immaterial whether the property is one or several.

23. But the decision in Ambati Narasayya (supra) also arose out

of   a   particular   context.   The   land   that   was   sold   in  Ambati

Narasayya (supra) was of the extent of 10 acres and it was sold for

Rs.17,000/­ for the satisfaction of a claim of Rs.2400/­. The land of

2 (1989) Supp. 2 SCC 693

12

LL 2021 SC 538
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

the extent of 10 acres is certainly large enough and is capable of

division.   But   in   the   case   on   hand,   the   extent   of   land   is   only   17

decimals, working out to (7450 Sq.ft.).

24. It   must   be   pointed   out   at   this   stage   that   under   Order   XXI,

Rule 66 (1) the executing court should cause proclamation of the

intended sale to be drawn up in the language of the court. Under

sub rule (2) of Rule 66 of Order XXI, such proclamation should be

drawn up after notice to the decree holder and the judgment­debtor.

Order XXI, Rule 66 reads as follows:­

66. Proclamation of sales by public auction.­ (1) Where any
property is ordered to be sold by public auction in execution of
a decree, the Court shall cause a proclamation of the intended
sale   to   be   made   in   the   language   of   such   Court.

(2) Such proclamation shall be drawn up after notice to the
decree­holder   and   the   judgment­debtor   and   shall   state   the
time and place of sale, and specify as fairly and accurately as
possible—

(a) the property to be sold, or, where a part of the property
would be sufficient to satisfy the decree, such part;

(b) the revenue assessed upon the estate or part of the estate,
where the property to be sold is an interest in an estate or in
part of an estate paying revenue to the Government;

(c) any incumbrance to which the property is liable;

(d) the amount for the recovery of which the sale is ordered;
and

13

LL 2021 SC 538
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

(e) every other thing which the Court considers material for a
purchaser to know in order to judge of the nature and value of
the property:

    Provided   that   where   notice   of   the   date   for   settling   the

terms   of   the   proclamation   has   been   given   to   the   judgment­
debtor   by   means   of  an  order   under   rule  54,   it   shall  not   be
necessary   to   give   notice   under   this   rule   to   the   judgment­
debtor unless the Court otherwise directs:

    Provided   further   that   nothing   in   this   rule   shall   be

construed as requiring the Court to enter in the proclamation
of sale its own estimate of the value of the property, but the
proclamation   shall   include   the   estimate,   if   any,   given,   by
either or both of the parties.

(3)  Every application for an order for sale under this rule shall
be   accompanied   by   a   statement   signed   and   verified   in   the
manner   hereinbefore   prescribed   for   the   signing   and
verification   of   pleadings   and   containing,   so   far   as   they   are
known   to   or   can   be   ascertained   by   the   person   making   the
verification,   the   matters   required   by   sub­rule   (2)   to   be
specified in the proclamation.

(4) For the purpose of ascertaining the matters to be specified
in   the   proclamation,   the   Court   may   summon   any   person
whom it thinks necessary to summon and may examine him
in  respect   to any  such  matters  and  require  him   to  produce
any document in his possession or power relating thereto.

25. It is important to note here that two significant changes were

made to Order XXI, Rule 66 by Act 104 of 1976 w.e.f. 01.02.1977.

Both these changes were made to sub rule (2) of Rule 66. One of the

changes was the insertion of the words “or where a part of the

property would be sufficient to satisfy the decree, such part”

in clause (a) of sub rule (2). The second change was the insertion of

two provisos under sub rule (2).
14

LL 2021 SC 538
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

26. As an aside, it may be noted that the second  proviso  to sub

rule (2) inserted by Central Act 104 of 1976, was redundant in so

far as Calcutta is concerned, since Calcutta already had a similar

proviso inserted through a local amendment.

27. The first  proviso  under sub rule (2) of Rule 66 of Order XXI

gives a discretion to the court not to give notice under Order XXI,

Rule 66 to the judgment­debtor, if a notice for settling the terms of

the proclamation had been given to the judgment­debtor by means

of an order under Rule 54.

28. Rule 54 of Order XXI prescribes the method of attachment of

immovable property. Sub rule (1A) of Rule 54, also inserted by Act

104 of 1976, mandates that the prohibitory order under sub rule(1)

shall   require   the   judgment­debtor   to   attend   court   on   a   specified

date to take notice of the date to be fixed for settling the terms of

the proclamation of sale.  This is why the first proviso to sub rule (2)

of Rule 66 gives a discretion to the court to dispense with a second

notice under Order XXI, Rule 66(2).

29. Keeping in mind the above statutory prescriptions, if we come

to the facts of the case, it is seen that the appellants have filed as
15

LL 2021 SC 538
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

additional   document   in   Annexure   A­3,   the   copy   of   the   extract   of

relevant orders passed in Money Execution Case No.2 of 1975 by

the District Munsif Court, Bongaon. This document reveals that on

10.01.1975,   the   executing   court   ordered   the   issue   of   notice   of

attachment   under   Order   XXI,   Rule   54   of   the   Code.   It   was   only

thereafter that the court directed on 16.07.1975, the issue of sale

proclamation under Order XXI, Rule 66.

30. Thereafter, the judgment­debtor filed a petition under Section

47   of   the   Code   on   02.09.1975   (this   was   the   first   petition   under

Section 47, while the appeal on hand arises out of the second petition

under Section 47).

31. The   executing   court,   at the  instance of  the judgment­debtor

also granted stay of further proceedings on 26.09.1975. But it is not

clear from Annexure A­3 of the additional documents filed by the

appellants,   as   to   when   the   said   petition   under   Section   47   was

disposed   of.   However   it   is   clear   from   the   order   passed   on

22.04.1978   that   the   decree   holder   was   directed   to   take   further

steps. 

16

LL 2021 SC 538
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

32. Even after directing the publication of the sale proclamation in

the   newspaper,   the   executing   court   was   more   than   fair   to   the

judgment­debtor,   as   could   be   seen   from   the   order   passed   on

16.03.1979. On the said date the executing court found that in the

newspaper publication,  the case number was wrongly mentioned.

Therefore,  the  court directed the issue of fresh sale proclamation

and fresh publication. It is only thereafter that the judgment­debtor

moved a petition on 30.05.1979 for postponement of the auction. It

was rejected and the court proceeded with the auction. The decree

holder himself participated in the auction after getting permission

from the court. However, it is only the third parties who succeeded

in getting the sale confirmed.

33. The above sequence of events would show that the judgment­

debtor had sufficient opportunity to object to the inclusion of the

entire property when an order was passed under Order XXI, Rule

54. Subsequently he had an opportunity to object to the inclusion

of the whole of the property, by taking advantage of the amended

clause   (a)  of   sub   rule   (2) of  Rule 66 of Order   XXI, which  speaks

about a part of the property that would be sufficient to satisfy the

17

LL 2021 SC 538
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

decree.   But   the   judgment­debtor   despite   filing   a   petition   under

Section 47 on 02.09.1975, did not point out how the property being

a vacant land of an extent of 17 decimals could have been divided.

It must be pointed out at the cost of repetition that the notice of

attachment under Order XXI, Rule 54 was ordered on 10.01.1975

and the sale proclamation under Order XXI, Rule 66 was directed to

be issued on 16.07.1975. It is only thereafter that the first petition

under Section 47 was filed on 02.09.1975. Therefore, the appellants

cannot compare themselves to the judgment­debtors in T.P. Subba

Reddi or Ambati Narasayya (supra).

34. As   we   have   pointed   out   elsewhere,   the   objection   relating   to

Order XXI, Rule 64 has been raised by the appellants for the first

time in the 5th round of litigation in execution. In the 1 st round, the

appellants   exhausted   the   gun­powder   available   under   Order   XXI,

Rule   90,   by   taking   recourse   to   a   compromise   with   the   auction

purchasers, after alleging material irregularity in the conduct of the

auction. The 1st round which commenced in 1979 came to an end in

1992 with the dismissal of SLP(C) No.18092 of 1991. In the order of

the High Court dated 20.12.1990 that was under challenge in the

18

LL 2021 SC 538
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

said SLP, the High Court made it clear that none of the parties shall

have   any   claim   whatsoever   as   against   the   auction   purchaser   in

respect of the purchased property (we have extracted this in Para

10 above).

35. The 2nd  round was kick­started with a suit in Suit No.249 of

1992   for   a   declaration   that   the   auction   sale   was   void.   This   is

despite the express bar of a separate suit, under Section 47(1) of

the Code. But the 2nd  round got aborted with the dismissal of the

suit due to abatement.

36. The   3rd  round   started   with   objections   to   the   issue   of   sale

certificate and it came to an end in the year 2001. The 4 th  round

commenced   when   the   auction   purchasers   moved   the   executing

court   for   delivery   of   possession.   Delivery   was   ordered   by   the

executing court on 15.03.2002. This round came to a close with the

dismissal of a SLP in the year 2005 and a review petition in the year

2006, arising out of the dismissal of a revision petition challenging

the order of the executing court for delivery of possession. It is only

thereafter   that   the   5th  round   of   litigation   was   started   by   the

appellants   by   filing   a   petition   under   Section   47   and   raising   the

19

LL 2021 SC 538
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

bogey of “jurisdictional error” on account of non­compliance with the

mandate of Order XXI, Rule 64. In other words, the appellants have

now exhausted almost all provisions available to a judgment­debtor

to stall execution and the case on hand is fit to be included in the

syllabus   of   a   law   school   as   a   study   material   for   students   to   get

equipped   with   the   various   provisions   of   the   Code   relating   to

execution.

Conclusion

37. The appellants cannot be allowed to raise the issue relating to

the breach of Order XXI, Rule 64 for the following reasons:­

(i) A judgment­debtor cannot be allowed to raise objections as to
the method of execution in instalments. After having failed to raise
the issue in four earlier rounds of litigation, the appellants cannot
be permitted to raise it now;

(ii) As   we   have   pointed   out   elsewhere,   the   original   judgment­

debtor   himself   filed   a   petition   under   Section   47,   way   back   on
02.09.1975.  What is on hand is a second petition under Section 47
and, hence, it is barred by  res judicata. It must be pointed out at
this stage that before Act 104 of 1976 came into force, there was
one   view   that   the   provisions   of   Section   11   of   the   Code   had   no
application  to  execution  proceedings. But under  Act  104 of 1976
20

LL 2021 SC 538
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Explanation VII was inserted under Section 11 and it says that the
provisions   of   this   Section   shall   apply   to   a   proceeding   for   the
execution of a decree and reference in this Section to any suit, issue
or former suit shall be construed as references to a proceeding for
the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and
a former proceeding for the execution of that decree;

(iii) Even in the 5th round, the appellants have not pointed out the
lay of the property, its dimensions on all sides and the possibility of
dividing the same into two or more pieces, with a view to sell one or
more of those pieces for the realisation of the decree debt;

(iv) The observations in paragraph 4 of the order of the High Court
dated 20.12.1990 in C.O.No.2487 of 1987 that, “none of the parties
shall have any claim whatsoever as against the applicant in respect
of the purchased property which shall be deemed to be his absolute
property   on   and   from   the   expiry   of   15th  December,   1980”,   has
attained finality;

(v) Section 65 of the Code says that, “where immovable property is
sold in execution of a decree and such sale has become absolute, the
property shall be deemed to have vested in the purchaser from the
time when the property is sold and not from the time when the sale
becomes absolute”. The sale of a property becomes absolute under
Order   XXI,   Rule   92(1)   after   an   application   made   under   Rule   89,
Rule   90   or   Rule   91   is   disallowed   and   the   court   passes   an   order
confirming   the   same.   After   the   sale   of   an   immovable   property

21

LL 2021 SC 538
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

becomes absolute in terms of Order XXI, Rule 92(1), the Court has
to grant a certificate under Rule 94. The certificate has to bear the
date   and   the   day   on   which   the   sale   became   absolute.   Thus   a
conjoint reading of Section 65, Order XXI, Rule 92 and Order XXI,
Rule 94 would show that it passes through three important stages
(other than certain intervening stages). They are, (i) conduct of sale;
(ii) sale becoming absolute; and (iii) issue of sale certificate. After all
these three stages are crossed, the 4 th stage of delivery of possession
comes under Rule 95 of Order XXI. It is at this 4 th  stage that the
appellants have raised the objection relating to Order XXI, Rule 64.
It  is   not   as   if   the   appellants  were not  aware of  the fact  that  the
property   in   entirety   was   included   in   the   proclamation   of   sale.
Therefore, the claim on the basis of Order XXI, Rule 64 was rightly
rejected by the High Court.

38. In view of the above, the appeal is devoid of merits and, hence,

it is dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.

......................................J.
(Hemant Gupta)

.......................................J.
(V. Ramasubramanian)

New Delhi
October  05, 2021

22

LL 2021 SC 538