PATTAM KHADER KHAN versus PATTAM SARDAR KHAN AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 320 · Decided: 09-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PATTAM KHADER KHAN 
v. 
PATTAM SARDAR KHAN AND ANR. 
JULY 9, 1996. 
B 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND SU.TATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Limitation Act, 196J-Article 13~"Sale becomes final''-Afeaning 
of-Whether limitation st01ts numing from the date of confinnation of sale 
or from the date of issuance of sale ce1tificate-Code of Civil of Procedure, 
C 1908-0rder 21 Rules 92, 94 and 95 and Section 65. 
Respondent No. 2 filed a partition suit in which a house was put on 
auction as it could not be partitioned. The Respondent No. 1 purchased 
the house in auction sale. There was no objection to the sale and the 
conduct thereof and the sale was confirmed by the Court on 7 .8.1984. A 
D sale certificate was, however, issued in favour of Respondent No. 1 on 
9.11.1989 i.e. about five years after the sale in favour of Respondent No. 1 
was confirmed. 
On 9.11.1989, an application under Order 21 Rule 95 of Code of Civil 
E Procerlure was moved by Respondent No. 1 seeking delivery of possession 
of the auctioned house. The appellant raised objection to the petition on 
the ground that the application was barred by limitation under Article 134 
of the Limitation Act, 1963 as it was filed more than one year after the 
confirmation of sale in favour of respondent No. 1. Article 134 of the 
Limitation Act deals with delivery of possession to a purchaser of immov· 
F able property at a sale in execution of a decree and provides for a period 
of limitation of one year from the date when sale becomes final. 
The Trial Court sustained the objection of the appellant. Respondent 
No. 1 thereafter filed a revision petition before the High Court. The High 
G Court, relying upon the judgment of the Privy Council in Chandra Mani 
Saha and Ors. v. A1101jan Bibi & Ors., AIR (1934) PC 134, held that the 
period of limitation would start running only after the sale certificate is 
issued to the auction • purchaser as the sale becomes final only on issuance 
of such certificate. Therefore, the application of the Respondent No. 1 for 
delivery of possession was found to be within limitation by the High Court. 
H Hence the present appeal. 
320 
PATIAMKHADER KHANv. PATTAMSARDARKHAN[PUNCHHJ,J.] 321 
Allowing the appeal and relegating respondent No. 1 to the remedy A 
of a suit for delivery of possession, this Court 
HELD : 1 The High Court erred in holding that it is only from the 
date when a sale certificate is issued, that the limitation starts running. 
[327-F-G] 
2.1. The title of the Court auction-purchaser becomes complete on 
the confirmation of the sale under Order 21. Rule 92, and by virtue of the 
thrust of Section 65 CPC, the property vests in the purchaser from the 
date of sale. The sale certificate is a formal acknowledgement of a fact 
already accomplished, stating as to what stood sold. Such act of the Court 
is pristinely a n1inisterial one and not judicial. It is in the nature of a 
formalisation of the obvious. [327-D] 
2.2. A Court sale is a compulsory sale, conducted by or under orders 
B 
c 
of the Court. The title to the property sold does not vest in the purchaser 
hnmediately on the sale thereof unlike in the case of a private sale. The D 
la\\' requires that it does not become absolute until sometime after the sale. 
In that W'hile, the sale is susceptible of being set aside at the instance of 
the judgment-debtor on the ground of irregularity in publication or con-
duct of the sale or on defalcation as regards deposit of money etc., as 
envisaged in Rules 89 and 90 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 
'Where no such application is made the Court is required to make an order, 
confirming the sale it is upon such confirmation that the sale becomes 
absolute in terms of Order 21 Rule 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After 
the sale has become absolute, a certificate is rec1uired to be granted by the 
Court to the purchaser, termed as 'certificate of sale' in Order 21 Rule 94 
of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such certificate bears the dates as on which 
the sale became absolute. It is on the sale becoming absolute that the 
property sold vests in the purchaser. The vesting of the property is thus 
made to relate back to Hie date of sale as required under Section 65 of 
the Code of Civil Procedure. [326-D-F] 
2.3. Order 21 Rule 95 providing for the procedure for the delivery of 
property in occupation of the judgment-debtor requires an application 
being made by the purchaser for delivery of possession of property in 
respec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.