LexSAGAR MAHAVIDYALAYA, SAGAR versus PANDIT SADASHIV RAO HARSHE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SAGAR MAHAVIDYALAYA, SAGAR v. PANDIT SADASHIV RAO HARSHE AND ORS. JULY 12, 1991 B [S. RANGANATHAN, N.M. KASLIWAL AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 65 and Order XX/- Rules 92 and 94--Sale of property takes place when sale confirmed- Issue of sale certificate a ministerial act and not judieial. " c One Govind Rao Harshe mortgaged some agricultural land and a house to Lakshmi Chand and Duli Chand Modi. The mortgagees filed a suit and obtained a preliminary decree and later a final decree for sale of the property for realisation of Rs.5001/13/6 on 26.3.1938, and applied for execution of the said decree, which was stayed' because the D mortgagor applied for relief under the C .P. and Berar Relief of In de- btedness Act 1939, to save the property from being sold at auction. Consequent upon his failure to comply with the conditions of the order passed in those proceedings, the decree-holders alleging default again applied for the revival of the execution proceedings and prayed for sale of the house property in dispute. The judgment-debtor did not appear E before the Executing Court and the said Court held that the decree- holders were entitled to execute the de.cree for the recovery of the debt. Thereupon the judgment-debtor submitted an application· for setting aside the ex-parte order, which was dismissed and an appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the District Judge. In the meantime the house was put to auction and the highest bid of Rs.6905 F was knocked down in favour of one Gopal Rao Mutatkar on 20.8.1942 and the sale was confirmed vide order dt. 10.4.1943. Applications filed by the judgment-debtor and his adult sons seeking to set aside sale were dismissed and the appeals failed even upto the High Court. In the meantime the appellant, a registered educational institution, through its Secretary, moved an application for granting a sale certificate stat- G ing that the house in question was auctioned by the Court and was purchased by Gopal Rao Mutatkar a member of the appellant-insti- l tution, on 20.8.1942, for Mahila Vidyalaya, which sale was confirmed on 10.4.43. The appellant prayed that the certificate be granted in its favour. A stamp requisite for the purpose was also supplied. The execut- ing court on 26.2.1944, ordered that the sale certificate will issue in the H name of Mahila Vidyalaya, Sagar, through Secretary, G.R. Wakhle and 906 ' SAGAR MAHAV!DYALAYA v. S.R. HARSHE 907 accordingly the sale certificate was issued in favour of the appellant on 8.4.1944. The four sons of the mortgagor filed a suit lmpleadlng the auction purchaser, G.R. Wakhle, Secretary, mortgagees and their father-mortgagor, as defendants, praying that the execution sale was not binding on their interest. The auction purchaser and the former Secretary of the appellant-institution objected to their being impleaded as parties to the suit, as according to them they had ceased to be the functionaries of the appellant and the suit should have been filed against the appellant itself and not a.gains! its office bearers. Thereafter the plaintiffs impleaded the appellant as party. This suit by the sons of the mortgagor was dismissed. The appellant thereupon as auction pur- chaser applied for the delivery of possession, which was granted. Some portion of the property was in occupation of the widowed sister, Radhabai, of the original mortgagor and other portions were in the possession of tenants. The Secretary of the appellant agreed to the request of the tenants that they will not be ousted as they were willing to execute rent notes. The appellant later required the premises and moved the Rent Controller for permission to serve notices on the tenants to vacate the premises. All the tenants except Radhabai and the original mortgagor who had also started living with his sister, vacated the premises. The appellant then instituted a suit against them. The trial court dismissed the suit for ejectment but passed a decree for arrears of rent. The appeal filed by the appellant against that order was allowed by the District Jndge. The original mortgagor's appeal failed before the High Conrt whereupon the appellant filed an execntion application for ejectment of the occnpants which is still pending as a result of stay order passed in a subsequent snit filed by Govind Rao Harshe, original mortgagor, against the appellant for a declaration, p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.