P. UDAYANI DEVI versus V.V. RAJESHWARA PRASAD RAO AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 332 · Decided: 24-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P. UDA Y ANI DEVI 
v. 
V.V. RAJESHWARA PRASAD RAO AND ANR. 
y 
FEBRUARY 24, 1995 
B 
(S.C. AGRAWAL AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.) 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Section 47 r/w S.151-Execution proceed-
ings-Money decree-Sale of propeity by auction-Ce1tificates of sale-Docu- --} 
c 
ments of title-Not to be lightly regarded or loosely construed-Question as 
to what was sold in execution of decree-Question off act-Revisional co wt 
/ 
not justified in reopening finding of fact. 
A money decree was passed against respondent No. 1. In execution 
of the said decree the property of respondent was sold by auction to the 
D appellant. In the sale certificate the property that was sold was described. 
The same description was given in the sale proclamation. Before issuance 
of the sale certificate respondent No. 1 had filed petitions for setting aside 
\ 
the sale on the ground that respondent No. 1 had only I/4th share in the 
.. 
property and further that the bid was too low. A schedule filed alongwith 
E the petition gave the description of the property in the same terms as 
mentioned in the sale proclamation and sale certificate. The petitions were 
dismissed and the sale was confirmed. The appellant obtained possession 
of the entire property within the boundaries as mentioned in the sale 
certificate. After the delivery of the possession respondent No. 1 filed a suit 
F 
for a declaration that the sale certificate issued in favour of the appellant 
\ 
did not pass title to the property bearing Door No. 14/7 and related only 
to the terraced building and for a permanent injuction. During the pen-
dency of the suit respondent No. 1 filed a petition in the execution proceed-
-')-~ 
ings u/s 47/151 CPC wherein he prayed for a declaration that the sale 
certificate did not pass titled to the appellant in respect of the property 
G mentioned in the schedule to the said application. The petition was dis-
missed. The Court held that the petition schedule property was located 
within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule to the execution petitions 
/ 
as well as in the schedule attached to the sale certificate. The contention 
that there were two buildings, the terraced building and the upstairs 
H building was rejected. A revistion petition filed against the order was 
332 
/ 
P.U.DEVI v. V.V.R.PRASADRAO[S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 
333 
allowed. The High Court held that when respondent No. 1 raised the A 
contention that \\ithin the boundaries there. was other upstair building 
with vacant site and that the property that was sold and delivered was only 
the krraced building, the lower court ought to have appointed a Commis-
sioner. Matter was remitted to the executing court \\ith the direction to 
appoint a Commissioner to make local inspection of the petition schedule B 
property to dispose of the execution application in accordance mth law. A 
review petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. These appeals were 
filed against the orders of the High Court. 
The appellant submitted that the High Court, in exercise of its 
revisional jurisdiction was in error in interefering mth the order passed 
by the subordinate Judge dismissing the application filed by respondent 
No. 1 under Section 47 r/ws 151. It was submitted that the boundaries of 
c 
the property which was sold in the auction sale was indicated in the sale 
certificate and they were same boundaries as were mentioned in the sale 
proclamation. The appellant urged that the sale certificate issued in favour D 
of the appellant was conclusive and there was no infirmity in the order 
passed by the lower Court. 
Allo\\ing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Certificates of sale are documents of title which ought 
not ·to be lightly regarded or loosely construed. In the instant case, in the 
sale certificate the boundaries of the property that was sold had been 
clearly indicated. The mention of the words 'terraced house' in the descrip-
tion could not be construed to mean that only a part of the property falling 
mthin the boundaries was sold and a part of the said property was left 
out. The expression "terraced house" being not an expression of precise 
conrnotation, the main building having the terrace and a room on the first 
floor could properly be described as the terraced house and other struc-
E 
F 
ture and land \\ithin the boundaries were part of the said property. The 
possession of the entire property, including the house having a room on G 
the first floor, was delivered to t

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