BHANWAR LAL versus SMT. PREM LATA & ORS.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 25 · Decided: 12-01-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, P.B. SAWANT, K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BHANWAR LAL 
A 
v. 
-:-\; 
SMT. PREM LATA & ORS. 
JANUARY 12, 1990 
\ 
[RANGANATH MISRA, P.B. SAWANT AND 
K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
B 
~ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 21Rule63/Rajasthan Civil 
Courts Ordinance, 1950: Section 21( l)(a)-Suit to set aside sale-
Appellate court decreeing restitution of property-Validity of-Value 
"""" 
of decree-Whether value for purpose of suit. 
c 
Under ~ection 2l(l)(a) of the Rajasthan Civil Conrts Ordinance, 
1950 the District Court is empowered to entertain an appeal from a 
~,( 
decree of the value of only upto Rs.10,000. Appeals in other cases lie 
only to the High Court. 
D 
In the instant case, a joint family house was brought to auction in 
satisfaction of an ex-parte money decree to recover Rs.5,557.10. The 
respondent coparceners filed objections under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC, 
which were rejected. The sale was confirmed in 1958 and the sale 
I 
certificate issued. They, thereupon, filed a suit under Order 21 Rule 63 
CPC to set aside the sale, in which the valuation of the property sold in 
E 
execution was put at Rs.15,000. 
-"4. 
The trial court dismissed the suit. The District Court, however, 
( 
allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for restitution of the property 
-t since possession had in the meantime been taken. The appellant auction-
purchaser raised objections to the execution on the ground that the said 
F 
"'-' decree was a nullity as the District Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction 
! 
to entertain the appeal against the decree in the suit valued at Rs.15,000 
under Section 2l(l)(a) of the <;>rdiuance, and that the decree being a 
declaratory one was incapable of execution. The executing court dismis-
sed the objection petition but on appeal the order was reversed. On 
furjher appeal, the High Court set aside the appellate order. 
G 
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court, 
'y 
HELD: The value of the amount of decree would be the value for 
the purpose of the suit under Order 21Rule63 CPC. In the instant case, 
the suit was laid to set aside the sale by declaring the decree of H 
25 
26 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] I S.C.R. 
A 
Rs.5,557.10 to be invalid. Merely because the valuation of the property 
sold in execution had been put at Rs.15,000 the valuation of the suit 
under Order 21 Rule 63 CPC could not be treated to be that valuation. 
.;..._ 
Accordingly, Section 2l(l)(a) of the Ordinance was attracted. It could 
not, therefore, be said that the decree passed by the District Court for 
restitution of the property wa•; a nullity. Since, it was not a mere 
B 
declaratory decree but coupled with a decree for restitution of the pro-
perty, the plaintiff was entitled to execution. [27G-28A, 28C] 
Radha Kunwar v. Reoti Singh, AIR 1916 PC 18 and Phu/ Kumar -~
v. Ghanshyam Mishra, 35 IA 22 PC, referred to. 
• 
c 
D 
However, in view of the fact that litigation was pending for a long 
period, it wonld be equitable if the appellant is permitted to pay the 
proper value of the house. The District Court is directed to assess the 
prevailing market value of the house and the site as on date. The 
appellant to pay the value thereof within a time fixed by the District 
Court. [280, Fl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 81 of 
1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.3.1989 of the Rajasthan 
High Court in S.B. Civil (Misc.) Second Appeal No. 2 of 1976. 
\. 
E 
Guman Mal Lodha, Sushi! K. Jain, B.P. Aggarwal and 
Sudhanshu Atreya for the Appellant. 
C.M. Lodha and Surya Kant for the Respondents. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K. RAMASWAMY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for both sides 
· and special leave is granted. 
2. This appeal by the auction-purchaser is against the judgment 
G 
of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, dated March 7, 1989 
made in S.B. Civil (Misc.) Second Appeal No. 2/76. The facts, though 
many, relevant to dispose of the appeal are stated as under: 
3. S/Shri Gokulchand and Rekhchand, Respondents Nos. 5 and 
6 herein, defendants 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 37/59 on the file of the Court 
H 
of the Civil Judge, Jhalawar, obtained in another suit, an ex·parte 
y 
J. 
B. LAL v. SMT. PREM LATA [K. RAMASWAMY, J.] 
27 
money decree to recover Rs.5,557.10 against Bal Mukund and brought 
to sale the joint family house which is the disputed property in the 
present litigation. Mohanlal, his minor son and his widow filed objec-
tions under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC which were rejected. The sale was 
confirmed on October 24, 1958, and sa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.