LexSRI R RAGHU versus SRI G M KRISHNA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2086 : 2025 INSC 1040 Sri R Raghu v. Sri G M Krishna & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 8544 of 2024) 25 August 2025 [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The appellant has preferred Civil Appeal No.8544 of 2024 aggrieved by the two directions given by the High Court in the impugned order relating to additional payment of Rs.25 lakhs per acre to the respondent as additional sale price and secondly, the direction to the District Court to conduct the survey of the auction property measuring 5 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.67 and to fix its boundaries. Headnotes† State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 – Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – The respondent was the Managing Director of a company that had borrowed money from respondent no.2 KFSC – Due to defaults in repayment, KSFC initiated recovery proceedings and was granted a decree against the Company – Subsequently, KSFC filed Execution Petition – As part of this process, agricultural land measuring 5.5 acres in Sy. No.67 of Agara Village, belonging to the respondent, was put to auction – The sale was finalised – However, VVMP, a Trust, filed an application for the issuance of a sale certificate in the execution petition and application was sworn by the appellant – Sale certificate was issued in the appellant’s favour as a Trustee of VVMP – It led to various rounds of litigation with main contention that the appellant had participated in the auction as a Trustee rather than an individual agriculturist – In the impugned judgment, the High Court has upheld the auction sale of Sy. No.67 but directed the appellant to pay an additional Rs.25,00,000/- per acre to respondent – The District Court was also directed to once again survey the Sy. No.67, rectifying its boundaries, if necessary, while maintaining status quo until then – Correctness: * Author [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2087 Sri R Raghu v. Sri G M Krishna & Anr. Held: 1. The High Court has carefully considered the long-drawn litigation, involving several rounds inter se the parties, as well as the various contentions raised and the conduct of the parties throughout – The Single Judge has rendered a just and equitable judgment by taking into account both the mitigating and aggravating aspects of their conduct – This Court finds that the Single Judge has dealt with each and every argument methodically and in the true spirit of law and justice. [Para 7] 2. The fact remains that the appellant, auction purchaser had purchased Sy.No.67 comprising of three parts with total area of 5 acres and 20 guntas (5-1/2 acres) – Once the area had been specified of the three parts being (a) 1 acre 24 guntas (b) 36 guntas and (c) 3 acres, totalling 5 acres and 20 guntas (5-1/2 acres), the appellant would not be entitled to hold possession of any more area than what was purchased in the auction and as mentioned in the sale certificate – Further, the issue relating to the identification and measurement is concerned, there is no justification to interfere with the direction of the High Court to get the survey carried out for specific measurements of the purchased property – Insofar as the direction for payment of Rs.25 lakhs per acre as additional sale consideration to the respondent is concerned, this Court does not wish to interfere with the same, considering the conduct of the appellant, whose dual role casts doubt on the entire proceedings [Paras 9-11] List of Acts State Financial Corporation Act, 1951; Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. List of Keywords Borrowed money; Defaults in payments; Recovery proceedings; Execution petition; Auction sale; Sale certificate; Participation in auction as trustee; Measurement of land; Rectification of boundaries; Additional sale consideration. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8544 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 17.08.2023 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRP No. 539 of 2015 2088 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports With Civil Appeal No. 8545 of 2024 and Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 657 of 2024 in Civil Appeal No. 8544 of 2024 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Gopal Sankaranarayan, Sonakshi Malhan, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Nikhil M Sakhardande, Sr. Advs., Sajal Jain, Ms. Aditi Gupta, Ms. Trisha C, Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, Ashish Venugopal, Nipun Katyal, Ms. Shubhra Swami, Nadeem Afroz, Nishchay Joh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.