DR. BHARGAVA AND CO. AND ANR. versus SH. SHYAM SUNDER SETH BY L.RS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 445 · Decided: 12-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, K. RAMASWAMY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

DR. BHARGAVA AND CO. AND ANR. 
v. 
SH. SHYAM SUNDER SETH BY L.RS. 
' . JYLY 12, 1994 . 
(KULDIP SINGH AND K. 'RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
' 
·, 
' 
1, 
·_ • 
e 
, Displaced Persons Cpmpensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955: Rule 
90 Sub-Rule(J5). Auction Sale-Purchase of evacuee propcrtfTit/e to auc-
tiqn purchaser-When passes-cSuit for .recovery of immovable property pur-
chased in auction ~ale-:f'.eriod ofLimitatiort-Reckoning of 
The re;pondeni's 'predecessor-in-interest purchased an evacuee 
property on November 2o, i962 in ~n· auction sale. As he failed to pay the 
full auction price the sale was cancelled. He filed a llTit petition challenging 
A 
B 
c 
the cancellation in the High Court which quashed the cancellation order. 
Subsequent to the High Court's judgment he paid the remaining sale price D 
in 1980 and.consequently a sale certificate was issued to him on March 31, 
1981 confirming the title to the suit property with effect from January 16, 
1964. On February 1, 1984 the Respondents' predecessor-in-interest filed 
a suit for possession''of the said property which was contested by the 
defendants-appellants on the grounds that (i) they had become the owners E 
of the property by adverse possession; and (ii) the suit was barred by 
limitation. Rejecting both the contentlons, the Trial Court decreed the suit. 
On appeal the High Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court. 
' . In appeal to this Court is. was contended on behalf of the appellants 
that a suit for possession of immovable property can be instituted under F 
Article 65 of the Limitation Act within 12 years from the point when the 
possessi~n of the defe:idaiit beca~e adverse to the plaintiffs and since the 
appellant's possession became adverse to the respondents on January 16, 
1964, from which date the titie in the property has been perfected in favour 
of the respondents, the suit filed in the year 1984 was barred by limitation. G 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. There is no ground to interefere with the conclusions 
reached by the trial court as upheld by the Division Bench of the High 
Court. [451-F) 
H 
445 
446 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
2. It is obvious from sub-rule (15) or Rule 90 or the Displaced 
Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955 that the title in the 
property cannot pass to the auction purchaser unless the purchase price 
has been realised in run. Till the time the full price or the evacuee property 
sold at auction is realised from the highest bidder, the question or trans· 
B £erring the property to him or his perfecting the title in the said property 
does not arise. Therefore, the auction purchaser cannot claim title to the 
property till the time the full price in respect or the said property is paid 
which is a condition precedent and sale certificate is issued. [449-C, 451-E) 
3. In the present case the full price or the property in dispute was 
c paid in the year 1980 and sale certificate was issued thereafter. As such, 
the title passed on to the respondent in the said year. Therefore, the suit 
filed in the year 1984 was clearly within limitation. [451-E) 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Mis Bombay Salt & Chemical Industries v. LJ. Johnson & Ors., AIR 
(1958) SC 289, referred to. 
Bishan Paul v. Mothu Ram, AIR (1965) SC 1994, explained and held 
inapplicable. 
Jaimal Singh v. Gini Devi, 66 Pun.L.R.99 : AIR (1964) Punj. 99, cited. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 910 of 
1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.87 of the Delhi High 
Court in R.F.A. No. 364 of 1985. 
Shiv Dayal Srivastava, S. Bagga, Seeraj Bagga and Ms. S. Bagga for 
the Appellants. 
A.P. Mohanty for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of.the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. This appeal is sequel to a suit for possession 
instituted by Shyam Sunder Seth predecessor-in-interest of the respondents 
in the appeal herein. The suit was decreed by the trial court. Appeal 
H against the judgment and dec~ee of the trial court was dismissed by a 
DR. ilHARGAVA & CO. 1·. S.S. SETH [KULDIP SINGH.J.] 
447 
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. This appeal by way of special 
leave is against the judgment of the High Court. 
The property in dispute was an evacuee property. Late Shyam 
Sunder Seth purchased the property in an auction - sale held on November 
20, 1962. He failed to pay the full auction price in aceordance with the 
terms of the sale and as such the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner 
cancelled the s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.