BAJARANGLAL SHIVCHANDRAI RUIA versus SHASHIKANT N. RUIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 373 · Decided: 23-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

BAJARANGLAL SHIVCHANDRAI RUIA 
A 
\'. 
SHASHIKANT N. RUIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 23, 2004 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Order ./I Rule ./-Re1·ersal of decree-Poirer ofAppellate Court-Appeal 
againsl decree filed by one of several defendants-Subsequent appeal filed by C 
co-defendant dismissed for default-Effect of-Held: Dismissal of subsequent 
appeal would not operate as res judicata-Hence, appeal filed by the first 
defendant would not be rendered infi'uctuous on this ground. 
Order 20 Rule 12-Decree for possession-Plaintiff derived her title to 
suit property on the basis ofsale certificate issued in her favour by M1111icti)(fl D 
Corporation-In the suit filed be/are the High Court dejendanr contended that 
the sale was a nullity-Single .fudge held that certificate of sale was null and 
void contravening S. 206 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888-
But Division Bench held that auction-sale could not be challenged by way of 
defence in the suit.filed by the plaintiff for recove1y of possession-Correctness E 
of-Held: If !he plaintiff's title to suit property was a nullity defendan/ need 
not challenge it by way of a subsequenl suit-Defendant could always sci up 
nullity of Ii/le as a defence in any proceeding taken against him-If plaintiff 
could not prove her lit le the suit mus/ fail nutwithslanding 1ha1 1he defenda/1/ 
in possession may or may no/ have lille lo 1he suit properly-Hence, Division 
Bench erred in inle1fering wilh !he finding of the Single Judge. 
Sec/ion 79-S11i1s by or against (Jovernmenl-Held: As a rule an act of 
Sia/e could be questioned by way of a duly consliluied suit-However, if 
another person claimed a tiile fi'om the so-called act of State, such a person 
F 
could plead nullity of litle as a defence. 
G 
limitation Ac/. 1963: 
Sec/ion 3-Bar of limitation-Plea-By defendant-Held: Though period 
cf limitation prescribed in li111i1a1io11 Act predudeJ a plaintiff:Ji-0111 hringing 
373 
H 
J 
374 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 
A a suit which was barred by limitation, there was no such /imitation as far as 
1..-.. 
B 
any defence was concerned 
Municipalities: 
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: 
Section 206(6)-Sale of property-Certificate of auction-sale-Issued in 
favour of plaintiff-Record showed one J as highest bidder-J did not claim 
to be an agent of plaintiff-Plaintiff claimed for the first time in the plaint that 
she paid the entire price of auction-sale-But such averment not substantiated 
by evidence-Division Bench held that since J was the employee of the plaintiffs 
C husband the sale certificate could be in the plaintiffs name and that it conveyed 
good title-Correctness of-Held: Certificate of sale issued in the plaintiff's 
name is not conclusive of the plaintiffs title-There is no provision in the Act 
or Regulations framed thereunder for conclusiveness of the certificate of sale-
Even assuming that such a conclusiveness or presumption was there, it could 
D only arise if it was shown that the certificate was issued in accordance with 
S. 206 and the Regulations-Reasoning of Division Bench was faulty-Hence, 
sale certificate issued in violation of S. 206 was illegal and void 
The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit on the original side of the High 
Court for recovery of possession of the. suit property. The respondent 
E claimed title to suit property on the basis of a certificate of auction-sale 
issued in her favour by the Municipal Corporation under Section 206 of 
the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. A Single Judge dismissed 
the suit on the ground that the certificate of sale issued by the Municipal 
Corporation was invalid and hence liable to be declared null and void for 
contravention of the provisions of Section 206 of the Act. The Single Judge 
F also found that while the sale certificate was issued in the name of the 
respondent-plaintiff, the Corporation's records did not show the 
respondent as the highest bidder nor as a purchaser in auction-sale. 
However, the record showed one J, an employee of the respondent's 
husband, as the highest bidder. No explanation was given for this 
G discrepancy and also J did not claim to be an agent of the plaintiff. The 
respondent claimed for the first time in the plaint that she had paid the 
entire price of the auction-sale but did not substantiate it by any evidence. 
In appeal, the Division Bench held that as J, the highest bidder, was 
in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.