PATHUMMA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1978] 2 S.C.R. 537 · Decided: 16-01-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 11 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

l 
.,.. 
-~ 
-·..._ 
.... • 
# 
• 
537 
PATHUMMA AND OTHERS 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS 
January 16, 1978 
[M. H. BEG, C.J., P. N. BHAGWATI, v. R. KRISHNA lYER; s. MURTAZA 
FAZAL Au, P. N. SHINGHAL, J.-\SWANT SINGH AND 
8 
V. D. TULZAPU.RKAR, JJ.] 
_Kerala A.r:rlculwri.fts Dl'bt Relief Act. 1970 .~. 20-Scop,· 
of-Section 20 
clllllles .cle~ror~ t~ reco••er proputil's .~old to rmrcllasers i11 t'.Tt'L'Iitio11 of d~crt?e 
passed m llqt~rclatiiiJ: the ~t·br owed by the ogriculturist-Rt•J•tricrion if reason-
ab/~-1! dt?pm·es rh_e crf(/1/ors of rlu!!'r ri.ffllt to property--Sub s. 3-/f purchaser 
C 
f!l prop~rty at auct1o!l lS _str~mg;r, properry to be retumed to o!fricult11rist d~htor 
'!purchase mo~u:y patd wulmt .su momlt.s--Sub-.'- (6) a bona jitle alienee purchas-
m;: from aucllOil purcha'ier before the date of tile Act e.tempt jrom opl!ration 
of the Act-Sub-s. (3 )-If \•iolar/l•t> of Art. 14 . 
The statement of objects ;~nd reasons to the 
Kcrala 
Al!riculturists• Debt 
Relief Act. 1970 states that the b~nefit~ conferred by Kern\~ Acr 31 of I 951S 
were nvnilable only in r~~ct of d~bts incurred by the agriculturists before the 
date of commencement of the Act. namdy Jui}' 14. 1958. 
And since even after 
D 
this date agricultural indebtedness among the poorer sections continued to be 
on the: incren~e the legislature consider(d it necessary to gh·e relief to the a_;!n-
cultunst~ agam-;t whom suit!! had been filcLI for recovery of debtll accrued atter 
the commencement of the 1958 AcL 
Se.:tion 20 (I) of the Act provides th~t where MY immo\·ablc property in which 
the agriculturist had nn interest has been '>old in cxeC111ion of any decree for 
recovery of a debt but possession has not actually passed from the judgmc:nt 
debtor to the purchuser and the decree-holder is the purchaser 
then such 
E 
judgment-debtor may deposit one haJf of the purchase money a.nd apply to the 
Court to set aside the sale of the property and the Court shall order the sate to be 
set aside and further order payment of the balance of the purchase '?toney m 
kn equal insmlments in accordance with the procedure !'et out the~rn. Sub· 
section (2) provide<l that where any immo\'able property in which tbe agricul-
luri.st had an intere~t hu been sold in e.'\ecution of nny decree for orre::u'll of 
rent and the pMses.qion of the property ha!! nctually passed from the. judgment 
debtor to the purchaser during the periods mentioned therein then such JUdgment· 
F 
debtor may d~posit one half of the purcha~e money nnd apply to th~ Court 
to !et a.-.ide the sale of the properly and the court !!hall order the setttng ns1de 
of the sale and for the payment of the b~llance of the rurch:1~ mon~y accord-
ing to the proceduro ~t out in the sl!ction. 
S\lb·scction 
(3) 
prOVIdes 
that 
where property sold in the execution of any deere~ for the reco\·cry of a debt 
t~nd the decree holder is not the purchaser su-.:h JUd~m~nt-debtor may depo.<at 
the purchn~e monev and apply to the court to set aside the sale of the pro~rty 
und the: Court shall order the snle to be set nside. 
Sub-section 
(.S) 
prov~;~e G 
that where imprm·ement~ have been ellect~d on l~e property sold after the 
be 
of snl~ the value of t~uch improvement u~ dctermrned by . the Courts !!bimll 1. n 
• 
• 
t 
h 
·tion .,urch·tser 
u -o;ec to 
de~11ed by the a pphcant for payment 
~ l e 
nu~.: 
,. 
• · 3 · shall not be 
(6) provides that nn ord~r under sul?·sl!ctro_n~ II) or (2) or eli~ · 
urch.:~scr 
deemed to llffccl the ri~hl!i of bona fule 
ohenee!l of . the auc 
n r 
deriving rights bdore the daltl of publication of the llJII. 
. 
I tl 
I 
. 
cJ 
mort,:·rce decree n8ain!lt the 
In the in.,lnnt cnscs a cn:d•tor 1:1 
~>tame. u 
d. btor wa!l not able to 
jud~menl debtor, who \\·a~ nn a~ ricultu n~t. Smce th~~al~ of th~ ' property wn• H 
pay the dccret!ll <~mount in inslnl~ents, 0, decree: fo{.ciioned and purchased by 
pas'ICd by the Court. 
The debtors prOp\:rly ~:.s ~omc cosei 
decrc\!s 
were 
the l_lPPdl!lnl who w~ not th~ dccree·0h?.!fer. 
1J ·on their failure to ray the 
ohlatned by the crrottors tl~atnst the 
~u 0~ an 
B 
·C 
D 
E 
F 
G 
J{ 
538 
. S'IJPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978] 2 s.c.R . 
in!>tnlments property was purchased at the auction by the d~cree-holdcrs them-
selws. After the purchase, improv~mcnts were rnnde by them in the propert1es. 
When the debtors launched proceedings under the Act for restoration o f posses-
sion of the property on pnyment of the decretal amount, t

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