Skip to content


V.A. Narayana Raja Vs. Renganayaki Achi (Died) and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.M.P. No. 16308 of 1982 in A.A.O. No. 532 of 1977
Judge
Reported inAIR1984Mad27
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 21, Rules 90 and 98 - Order 34, Rule 5
AppellantV.A. Narayana Raja
RespondentRenganayaki Achi (Died) and ors.
Appellant AdvocateM. Srinivasan, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateA.R. Lakshmanan, ;D. Raju, Advs. ;M. Venkatachala, Adv. General, ;B. Jaganathan and ;S. Rajasekharan, Advs.
Cases ReferredTin Valliammal v. Subramania Iyer
Excerpt:
.....the confirmation of sale can became effective only in the event of this court dismissing the appeal filed by the judgment-debtor questioning the dismissal by the executing court of his application under order xxi, rule 90, civil procedure code it is also true that as a result of the confirmation of the sale and the issue of a sale certificate, the auction purchaser gets title to the property and the title of the judgment debtor stands lost. but, since the sale is subject to the final result of the petition filed by the judgment debtor under order xxi, rule 90 civil procedure code the confirmation of sale and the consequent issue of the sale certificate should all be taken to be subject to the result of the petition under order xi, rule 90 civil procedure code. therefore the vesting..........property was sold in court auction and the same was purchased by a third. party, the mortgagors filed applications in the, executing, court for, setting aside the sale, these applications were dismissed and the sale. was confirmed. the mortgagors filed an appeal to the high court before the appeal ,was heard, an application under o. 34 r. 5 read with s. 151 c. p. c. was filed by the mortgagors for redemption of the mortgage by deposit the court auution purchaser objected that the application was belated and that in any event such a petition would not after the sale has been confirmed by thelower court. natarajan j., has held that the appeal preferred by the judgment debtors against the rejection of their application for setting aside the sale had the effect of rendering the sale and.....
Judgment:
1. This is a petition by the appellant in C. M. A. No. 532 of 1977 pending before this court Under O. 34, R. 5, read with S, 151, C. P. C to permit the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2, 67, 974 - 64 into court

2. The circumstances under which the said application has been filed may briefly be stated. The appellant had executed a mortgage of two items of properties in the year 1963. A suit O. S. 166 of 1965 was filed on the said mortgage and there was a preliminary decree, in that suit on 29-6-1966 for Rs. 1,23,088.58 with subsequent interest thereon. Later on 28-2-1967, a final decree had been passed. An execution petition was filed in E. P. No. 119 of 1967 for realising the decree amount by sale of the hypotheca. As the decree holder died later, his legal representation came on record on 30-11-1967. The said execution petition was posted for disposal on 22-12-1967. However, it was advanced and taken up on 1-12-1967 and posted to 2-12-1967, when the executing court directed the properties to be sold on 22-1-1968. The sale was actually held on 23-1-1968 and item I was sold in favour, of the 5th respondent in the civil miscellaneous appeal for a sum of Rs. 40,000 and item 2 was Sold in the name of the 6th respondent in the civil miscellaneous appeal, for a sum of Rs. 73,500. On 10-3-1969. the defendant, the judgment debtor field E. A. 157 of 1969. under O. 21. R 90 C.P.C. for setting aside the sale. Not-, withstanding the filing of the application, the executing court had confirmed the sale.

3. In E. A. 151 of 1969, the judgment debtor contended that the Court auction purchasers of the two items of properties were close relations of the decree holder, and therefore, the purchase should lie deemed to be by the judgment debtor without obtaining leave to bid and that, in addition to that, there was irregularities in the conduct of the sale. The said E. A. 157 of 1969 was resisted by respondents 2 and 3 who are the legal representatives of the original decree holder and the respondents 5 and 6 who are the purchasers of items 1 and 2 respectively. The 4th respondent was a subsequent mortgagee of the said properties. The executing court dismissed the said E. A. No. 157 of 1969 holding that there was no, irregularity in the conduct of the sale. Aggrieved by the said decision of the executing court, C. M. A. 532 of 1977 had been filed by the judgment debtor. That appeal was allowed by this court on the ground (1) that considerable prejudice has been caused to the judgment debtor in advancing the hearing of the execution petitioner without notice to him or his counsel. (2)that the advancement of the hearing of the execution petition is a clear case of the abuse of process of court and (3) that the sale had gone on without the judgment debtor's valuation being shown in the proclamation. The result was, E. A. 157 of 1969 stood allowed and the sale in favour of the respondents 5 and, 6 stood aside. Later, two petitions, one by the 3rd respondent and the other by the legal representatives of the 5th respondent were filed for setting aside the judgment of this court in C. M. A. 532 of 1977 dated 5-3-1981.

4. The grounds urged in the first case by the third respondent are that be was not personally served in the appeal, that he was said to have been served only by substituted service that as he had shifted his residence he could not be serve personally, that he came to know about the disposal of the civil miscellaneous appeal only a month before the filing of the petitioned and that therefore in the interest of justice, the order passed in the civil miscellaneous appeal should be set aside as far as he is concerned and the matter reheard. The second petition has, been filed by the legal representatives of the 5th respondent. The contention was that the 5th respondent had died long -long ago and the civil miscellaneous appeal has been heard without bringing the legal representatives of the 5th respondent on record and therefore the decision rendered in the civil miscellaneous appeal so far as the 5th respondent is concerned will not bind them. Taking into account the contentions advanced by the petitioners therein both the petitions were allowed so far as the petitioners are concerned, and the civil miscellaneous appeal was directed to be reheard only in respect of their interest. Thus the court auction sale now stands set wide so far as the other respondents are concerned except the 3rd respondent and the legal representatives of' the. 5th respondent. The judgment in civil. miscellaneous appeal has become final so far as the respondents other than respondent No. 3 and the legal representatives of the 5th respondent are concerned and the civil miscellaneous appeal stands posted for rehearing only to the extent of the interest of the third respondent and the legal representatives of the 5th, respondent. It is only at this stage the appellant has filed this petition under O. 34, R. 5 C.P.C. for deposit of the decree amount.

5. This petition is opposed by the 3rd respondent and the legal representatives of the 5th respondent in the civil miscellaneous appeal on the ground that any deposit under O. 34. R. 5, C.P.C. can be permitted to be made only before the actual confirmation of sale. But in this case, the confirmation of sale having taken place long before the filing of the civil miscellaneous appeal, the appellant cannot now be permitted to make the deposit. According to the petitioner, though the confirmation of sale has taken place, since the validity of the sale has been challenged under O. 21, R. 90. C.P.C. till the conclusion, of those proceedings, the deposit under O. 34. R. 5 C.P.C. could be made, and the confirmation of sale cannot be said to have become final and conclusive as long as the validity of the sale which is said to have been confirmed is the subject matter of challenge and until the validity of the sale is conclusively, decided, by the appellate court, the confirmation of sale should be taken to be in abeyance.

6. The scope and ambit of O. 34,R. 5, C. P. C. came up for consideration in Madhavan Nayanar v. Paremeswara, AIR 1948 Mad 373. In that case, there was a preliminary mortgage decree passed on 13th Sept. 1934, followed by final decree on 27th Jan. 1936 in the mortgage suit O. S. 15 of 1933 on the file of the District Judge of North Malabar. The mortgaged property was sold in execution and purchased by one Vengayil Madhavan Nayanar. On 16th Nov. 1944. the first defendant in the suit applied in E. A. 52 of 1944. under Order 21 Rule 90 C. P.C. for setting aside the sale. This application under went several adjournments. On 6th Mar.1945 the decree holder applied in E. A. 25 of 1945 under Order 21 R. 2 for recording full satisfaction of the decree alleging that defendant I agreed to pay and the decree holders agreed to receive Rs. 6750 in full satisfaction of the decree. On 10th Mar. 1945, the trial court directed, that full satisfaction of the decree should be recorded and that the sale should be cancelled, overruling the auction purchased content that no deposit under Order 34 R. 5 C. P. C. could be made after the court auction sale has been confirmed. The trial court took the view that O. 34 R.5 C. P. C does not specifically prohibit private adjustment of the decree by arrangement arrived at between the judgment debtor and the decree holders even after the court auction sale of the judgment debtor's property. The auction purchaser took the matter to this court contending that the language of O. 34 R. 5 of the Code is imperative and that as the amount due to the decree holders was admittedly not deposited in court for satisfaction of the decree the sale cannot be set aside. On the other hand, the judgment debtor contended that O. 21 R.2 of the code would apply even after the sale of the mortgaged property and that satisfaction of the decree can, therefore be recorded when payment is made out of court or the decree is otherwise adjusted net with standing that a sale was already taken place. On these facts, the question that came up for consideration before the court was, Whether after a sale of the hypotheca in execution of final decree for sale, it is open to the mortgagor more than 30 days, after the sale but before its confirmation to pay out of court, the amount due to the decree holder or otherwise satisfy him and claim the benefit of O. 34 R. 5 of the code for in other words, whether or not the require merit of the said rule that the said amount must be deposited in court is obligatory and is strictly to be complied with the court held that the language of R. 5 of O. 34 is imperative and the requirement that the amount, due to the decree holder must be deposited in court is obligatory and must be strictly complied with a Payment or adjustment out of court would not be in compliance with the strict requirements of the rule that O. 21 R. 2 is not applicable after a sale, of the mortgaged property in execution and that in the case of a mortgage decree for sale. O. 21 R. 89 is available only within 30 days of the decree, and O. 31 R. 5 applies after the stage of the sale.

7. The Supreme Court also has considered the scope of R. 5 of O. 34 of the Code in Hukamchand v. Bansilal . In that case,

there was a decree passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, against a member of the Co-operative Society directing the member to pay certain amount within a particular date and if the amount is not paid the property could be sold in satisfaction of the amount. The amount was not paid by the member as directed. Therefore, the property was sold in auction to one Hukamchand on 7th April 1956. As am application was made by the. judgment debtor on 3rd May 1958, the sale could riot be confirmed under O. 21 R. 92 of the code. until the application was disposed of the said application stood adjourned from time to time and ultimately on 7th Oct. 1958 the court granted time till Nov. 21. 1158 to the judgment debtor to deposit the amount due and the application under O. 21 R. 90 of the code was dismissed as withdrawn, When taw ratter came up before the executing court on Nov 22, the court noted that no amount had been deposited and although an application was made on behalf at the respondents for a further extension of time, the executing court field that as the society decree holder and the auction purchaser were riot willing to extend time, the court could not, extend time, which had been given under an agreement. The Court therefore confirmed the sale under O. 21 R.92 C.P.C When the said order refusing extension of time was challenged, the Supreme Court held (1) that the order executing court refusing extension of time and confirming the sale in favour of the appellant under O. 21 R. 92 C.P.C. was correct (2) that it was not open to the executing court to extend time without the consent of parties: (3) that S. 148 of the C. P. C. would not apply to the facts of these cases; (4) that O. 34 R. 5 C. P. C. recognises the right of the judgment debtor to pay the debtor amount in an execution relating to a mortgage decree for sale at any time before the confirmation of sale: (5) that the rule does not give any power to the court to grant, time to deposit the money after the final decree has been passed. (6) that it is not open to the court to go on filing date after date and postponing the confirmation of sale merely to accommodate a judgment debtor, and (7) that a harmonious construction of O. 34 R. 5 and Order 21 Rule 92 makes it clear that if the provisions of O. 21 R. 92 (1) apply the sale must be confirmed unless before the confirmation the martgagor-judgment-debtor has deposited the amount as permitted by O.34 R. 5 C. P. C.

8. Though the above decision of the Supreme Court, laid down. that no deposit under O. 34 Rule 5 C.P. C, could be made after confirmation of sale, which is what O.34,R.5 C. P. C itself says the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in this case, there is, confirmation of sale, the confirmation has not become final as the petition filed under Order 21 Rule 95 C, P, C. should be deemed to have been pending , so far as the civil miscellaneous .appeal has not been finally disposed of. According to the learned counsel, once a petition is filed under O. 21 R. 90. C. P. C., challenging the validity of the sale, till the validity of the sale is finally decided, the very confirmation of sale the meanwhile should be taken to be tentative and therefore, the judgment debtor is entitled to file an application under O, 34 R, 5 of the Code. In support of the said submission. the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the decision of Natarajan J, in Rajagopalam(1975) 2 Mad LJ 494. In that case, a suit was filed on a mortgage and preliminary decree and final, decree were passed, and thereafter the property was sold in court auction and the same was purchased by a third. party, The mortgagors filed applications in the, executing, court for, setting aside the sale, These applications were dismissed and the sale. was confirmed. The mortgagors filed an appeal to the High Court Before the appeal ,was heard, an application under O. 34 R. 5 read with S. 151 C. P. C. was filed by the mortgagors for redemption of the mortgage by deposit The court auution purchaser objected that the application was belated and that in any event such a Petition would not after the sale has been confirmed by thelower court. Natarajan J., has held that the appeal preferred by the Judgment debtors against the rejection of their application for setting aside the sale had the effect of rendering the sale and its confirmation fluidal and nebulous and that the finality of the sale was rendered at large and as such the petitioners would be entitled to exercise the right conferred on them under O. 34 R. to fredeem the martgagee.

9. The learned Advocate GenerJ appearing for one of the couct auction purchasers, however. contended that the said deesion of Natarain. does Rao lay down the correct law, and tW ba any event. that will licot apply to the JaLts of this case. According to I&n.; the title of the court auction purchasen becomes perfected on the issue of sale certificate after confirmation of sale, as held in

and that therefore tke purchasers, title wiAcb, has been perfected cannot 'be displaced bi the Judgment debtor depositing the anount MdeT

0. 34 R. 5 C. P. C, -vid it is for this reason 0. 34, JR. 5 C. P. C, prescribed the date of confirmation as the date before w)ack the deposit under That rule, is to be made. In that casei the Bench has observed (at P. 761):-

"On the issue of a sad- certificate to the perch-wer under 0. MXII R. 94. the latter's tit!e becornes perfected 'and cory tpiete and his right to possession unimpeachable as against the parties to the suit as vrell as those clairaing under them. There is no obligation on his part, to apply to the court for delivery, and, it is oper. to him to obtain possession orit of Court."

According to the, learned Advocate General. once the titip has vested in the wiction purchaser after the issue of a sale eerlificate as held in the above-said decision. IPAm- the iud!,rinent debtmr by resorting to 0, 34 It. 5 C. P. C. cannot seek to displace that title which had already inhered in the auction purchaser, gmd. therefore, it is not possible for the court to permit the juftiment debtor to deposit the amount under 0. 34 T1, 5 C. P. C. by way of yedemption, &f; the mortgage which has got flkj- indireet effect of setting aside the sale.

10. Natarajan J. in NuPral has taken the view that

when once an application under 0. 21 ft. 90 C~P.C. has been filed. any confermation of sale by the executing court cannot be said. to be absolute so far as, that co4t is coacerned.' and if the matter is taken in appeal and allowed and the sale is set aside- then. there will be me sale, and, of course, no confirmation and no absolute sale, taking into accGunt the obseivatim-m made by the Privy Council in Chaudratneni Shaha v. AnarUri Wai ilkA) 61 1A 248: (AIR 1534 PC 1341 aiad Vairadaraian v. Venkatar vathi Reddy. (1953) 1 Mad LJ 148 *_ (AIR 7953 Mad 58U The learned Judge also haq oh-Aervect that the appeal filed J-n the High Court against the rejeetfon UT the executing court of m application under 0. 21 R. 90 C. P. C. must be regarded as a continuation of the proceediews of the lower court to set aside the sale. and Itill that appeal is decided, the sale does not become- absolute and even if confirmation of sale had taken place ipi the meanwhile the effect of the pendency of an application under 0. 21 K 90 C. P. C. automatically operated to vacate or render ineffective the earlier order confirming the sale under 0. 21 R. 92 C. F. C. and that the pendency of an application under 0. 21 R. 90 C, P. C. is a bar to an order of confirmation of sale under 0. 21 R. 92 C. P. C.

11. Tin Valliammal v. Subramania Iyer (1964) 1 Mad LJ 275 Ramachandra lyer C, J. held that so long "as the sale has not b,-en confirined, it would be open to the mortgagors to deposit the amount due together with the solatium prescribed therein and avoid the sale that notwithstanding the fact that the application for setting aside the sale had been dismissed by the trial court. The matter was at large before the appellate court in' appeal and that therefore, there was no final order of confirmation of sale before the disposal of the appeal unrepoted decision in of IM dt 1-6-1982, same view and held in favour of a court has been confirmed dismissal of the application under G yet an application 5 C. P, C. can be as the appeal filed Ratnam J. an C. M. A 1;1o, 186 has also taken the that though a sale action purchaser consequent to the plic-atior'i filed by 0. 21 -R, 90 C, P. ti,Dn under 0, 34 R maintained so long against the order of dismissal of the application under 0. 21 R. 90 C. P. C. filed before the appellate court has not been disposed of.

12. 1 am inclined to agree with the view expressed in the above cases, It is no doubt true that deposit under 0. 34 R. 5 C. P. C. can be made only before the confirmation, of sale but not afterwards as has been held by the 'Supreille Court in (supra).. But the

question' is as to what is. the date of confirmation of sale, Though. as a result of the di8m;ssa! of the petition filed by the Judgment debtor under See. 2! R. 90 C. P. C, 'the sale has been confirmed in this case, there has been an appeal agairrst the said decision ~md the appeal is pending before this court. The pendoney -3f the appeal makes the order c sal* iaeftet We. The eftfirmatim sale ~can -become, effective~ - only in tke event of this court dismissing Aht-_ appeal quest;filed I by the'judgment debtor joining the dismissal by, the executing Court of his application under 6- 21 R. 90 C. P. C. It is also true that as,a result of the confirmation of the sale and the issue of a sale certificate, the auction, purchaser gets title to the property and the title of the Judgment debtor stands lost. But, since the sale is subject to the final result of the -vetition filed by the judgment debtor under 0. 2.1 R. go C. P. C. the confirmation of sale and the consequent issue of the sale certificate should all be , taken to be subject to the result of the petition under 0. 21 R. 90 C. P. C. Therefore, the vesting of title on the auction purchaser resulting from the issue of a sale certificate should also be taken to be subject to the result of the petition under 0. 21 R. 90 C. P. C. This is obvious from the fact that if the apoellate Court were to set aside the sale under 0. 21 R. 90 C. P. C, the sale' will stand set aside as also the subsequent confirmation of sale and the issue- of sale certificate. It is not therefore possible to accept the contention of the learned Advocate General that since the confirmation has already taken place in this case, there is no question of 0. 34 R. 5 C. P. C. being availed of by the judgment debtor. if the said contention were to be accepted, the appeal filed against the order dismis5ing the application under 0. 21 R. 90 6. P. C. cannot be prosecuted any further. It is also, to be pointed out that this is an a fortiori case. Here. the application filed under 0. 21 R. 90 C. P. C. has been allowed except in so far as it relates to the third respondent and the legal representatives of the fifth respondent and the appeal as against them, alone is still pending. Even assuming the appeal were to be dismissed as against the third respondent and the legal representatives of the fifth respondent, the sale so far as the other respondent are concerned including the decree holders stands set aside. Since the sale has been partly set aside, the confirmation of sale will automatically stand affected. In this view of the matter. I have ' to hold that the application under 0. 34 R. 5 C. P. C. is maintainable. The learned Advocate 4eneral then point.,; out that 0. 34 R." 5 C P. C. contemolates the deposit being Mde before the filing Of the. Application -and, no such ' deposit-.,having.-be a made,' the application; hgs~ 7to,16, rejected. It- i! to. be noted, that unless there is an order made by the- court, either~ judicially - oir administratively. the., deposit ; cannot. be made in court and the petitioner only seeks the permission of the- court - to enable~ him to make a deposit under 0. 34 R. 5 !of the Code, - though any relief under 0. 34 4., 5 of the Code- can be got after the deposit.

13. This . petition is. therefore allowed, and the petitioner is permitted to deposit the. Sum .of Rs 2,67,974-64 np. within two weeks before the trial court. Once such deposit is, made in the trial court. the court_ will go into the question of the sufficiency or otherwise of the amount deposited or the purpose- of redemption. The petition is 'ordered accordingly. No costs.,

14. Petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //