Finality of Court-Auction Sales and Bar on Successive Challenges:
Comprehensive Commentary on Sri R Raghu v. Sri G M Krishna (2025 INSC 1040)

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sri R Raghu v. Sri G M Krishna, delivered on 25 August 2025, settles two long–standing uncertainties in execution jurisprudence:

1. The extent to which a judgment-debtor (or anyone claiming through him) can re-agitate objections to a court-auction sale after an earlier challenge under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) has failed and attained finality.
2. The manner in which courts may balance equity when an auction purchaser’s conduct is found wanting yet the sale itself is legally unassailable.

Arising from an acrimonious two-and-a-half-decade struggle over 5 acres 20 guntas of agricultural land in Agara Village, the judgment clarifies that:

Simultaneously, the Court preserved the validity of the 2003 auction sale but, in view of the purchaser’s “dubious dual role”, upheld an equitable direction to pay additional compensation and ordered a fresh survey to ensure the purchaser does not enjoy more land than was actually auctioned.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court, speaking through Vikram Nath J (with Prasanna B Varale J concurring), dismissed cross-appeals filed by:

• Sri R Raghu (auction purchaser) – challenging (i) the High Court’s direction to pay ₹25 lakh per acre as additional sale consideration and (ii) the order for a fresh cadastral survey of Sy. No. 67.
• Sri G M Krishna and his wife Smt Arathi Krishna (judgment-debtor and transferee) – seeking to nullify the auction sale itself.

Key holdings:

1. The auction sale dated 19-04-2003, its confirmation on 27-08-2005 and sale certificate dated 09-09-2005 remain valid and binding.
2. Nevertheless, to ameliorate the inequitable advantage secured by the purchaser, the direction to pay an additional ₹25 lakh per acre is “well-deserved and justified”.
3. The High Court was right in ordering a court-supervised survey to ensure the purchaser’s possession conforms exactly to the 5 acres 20 guntas specified in the sale certificate.
4. Repeated challenges by the judgment-debtor are impermissible once an earlier application under Order XXI Rule 90, dismissed for limitation and affirmed up to the Supreme Court, has attained finality.
5. Since Sections 79-A, 79-B and 79-C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (“KLR Act”) – which formerly forbade non-agriculturists/trusts from holding agricultural land – were repealed retrospectively w.e.f. 1-03-1974, eligibility-based objections became infructuous.
6. The contempt petition alleging breach of interim orders failed consequent upon dismissal of the substantive appeals.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents and Authorities Relied Upon

While the judgment does not parade a long list of external citations, it draws heavily on fundamental doctrines that have consistently shaped execution jurisprudence. The relevant authorities (either expressly referred to in earlier rounds or necessarily implied) include:

• Dhirendra Nath Gorai v. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh (1964 SC) – holding that an auction sale cannot be set aside for a mere irregularity unless “substantial injury” is shown; informs the Court’s reluctance to reopen a sale concluded two decades earlier.
• Radhabai v. Ramchandra (1967 SC) – on the bar of res judicata in execution proceedings; provides the doctrinal foundation for barring successive objections.
• Silverline Forum Pvt Ltd v. Rajiv Trust (1998 SC) – explaining that after confirmation, a sale can be annulled only on grounds enumerated in Order XXI Rule 90, reinforcing finality.
• Balakrishnan v. Malaiyandi Konar (2006 SC) – limitation under Order XXI Rule 90 is inflexible; Section 5 of the Limitation Act is inapplicable – echoed verbatim by the Karnataka High Court in 2007.
• Principle of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit – the court should not permit its process to work injustice. The Supreme Court applied this principle to uphold additional payment so that the litigant who prolonged the dispute is compensated.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Bar of Constructive Res Judicata

   The respondent’s earlier application under Order XXI Rule 90, filed in 2006 and dismissed as time-barred, was affirmed right up to the Supreme Court. The Court held that raising identical grounds (fraud, boundary mismatch, ineligibility of purchaser) through a fresh Section 47 petition in 2014 constituted a prohibited “second bite at the cherry”.

2. Effect of Retrospective Repeal of KLR Act Sections 79-A/79-B/79-C

   The respondent’s principal plank – that the purchaser, a trust, could not legally hold agricultural land – vanished when the Karnataka legislature repealed those provisions with retrospective effect from 1974. The Court construed this repeal as curing any alleged illegality ab initio, leaving no sustainable challenge on that score.

3. Limited Scope of Interference with Confirmed Sales

   The Court reiterated that once a sale is confirmed, title passes to the purchaser and can be defeated only on well-defined, narrowly construed grounds (fraud on court of a kind that vitiates the entire process, lack of jurisdiction, etc.). Here, although the purchaser’s conduct was censured, it did not reach the threshold required to nullify the sale, especially after confirmation had attained finality nearly twenty years earlier.

4. Equitable Adjustment – Additional Consideration

   Balancing legality with equity, the Supreme Court endorsed the High Court’s direction that Raghu pay an extra ₹25 lakh per acre to the judgment-debtor. The Court treated this as a pragmatic remedy that:

   • penalises the purchaser’s “dual role” (bidding ostensibly in his personal capacity while immediately claiming under a trust);
   • ensures the judgment-debtor is not left uncompensated for the delay and potential undervaluation; and
   • obviates the drastic measure of upsetting a long-settled sale.

5. Survey & Demarcation

   Because the bailiff’s initial failure to identify boundaries had fuelled serial disputes, the Court affirmed a fresh court-supervised survey to ensure the purchaser’s possession exactly matches the 5 acres 20 guntas reflected in the sale certificate – neither an inch more nor less.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

The ruling carries significant forward-looking consequences:

• Stability of Auction Sales: Execution purchasers, bidders and financial institutions gain confidence that sales confirmed years earlier will not be lightly undone by serial litigation.
• Litigation Economy: By branding repetitive challenges an abuse of process, the Court arms lower courts with precedent to summarily reject similar attempts, relieving clogged execution dockets.
• Equitable Levers Retained: Courts retain discretion to impose monetary adjustments where a sale is technically valid but tainted by purchaser conduct—creating a middle path between cancellation (harsh on bidders / decree holders) and blind affirmation (unfair to judgment-debtors).
• Effect of Statutory Repeals: The case illustrates how retrospective legislative changes can extinguish ongoing litigation grounded in the repealed provisions.
• Boundary Clarification Protocols: Mandating a fresh survey under judicial supervision provides a template for resolving post-sale boundary uncertainties, a recurring flashpoint in land-execution cases.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

(a) Order XXI Rule 90 CPC

A rule that allows any person whose interests are affected by a court-auction sale to move the very executing court to set that sale aside on the grounds of “material irregularity or fraud” in publishing or conducting the sale, provided they do so within 60 days. Crucially, mere irregularity is not enough; the applicant must also show they suffered substantial injury.

(b) Section 47 CPC

Empowers the execution court to decide “all questions arising between the parties to the suit relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree”. While broad in terms, it cannot be used to bypass specific remedies (like Rule 90) or to re-litigate issues already decided.

(c) Res Judicata & Constructive Res Judicata

“Res Judicata” literally means “a matter already judged”. Once a competent court decides an issue between parties, they cannot reopen it. “Constructive” res judicata bars not only issues actually raised but also those that ought to have been raised in earlier proceedings.

(d) Retrospective Repeal

When a statute or provision is repealed with retrospective effect, it is deemed never to have existed from the specified back-date. All ongoing proceedings grounded solely on that provision normally abate, unless the repealing statute saves them.

(e) Colourable Exercise of Power

A principle where an authority ostensibly acts within its jurisdiction but, in substance, pursues an illegitimate purpose. The High Court branded the Tahsildar’s orders as a “colourable exercise” because they facilitated a private litigant’s agenda under the guise of statutory power.

5. Conclusion

Sri R Raghu v. Sri G M Krishna lifts the fog surrounding the finality of court-auction sales. The Supreme Court’s twin affirmation—that (1) repetitive post-confirmation challenges are barred, and (2) equity may still be served through calibrated monetary adjustments—strikes a sophisticated balance between certainty of title and fairness to defeated litigants.

Practitioners should note the following take-aways:

• Exhaust all objections in the first Rule 90 application; subsequent attempts are likely to be dismissed outright.
• Purchasers must conduct themselves transparently; courts retain power to impose financial consequences even when sales survive legal scrutiny.
• Boundary ambiguities should be resolved quickly via court-approved surveys to avoid decades of collateral litigation.
• Legislative changes can dramatically alter the viability of pending disputes; regular statutory tracking is essential.

In sum, the decision fortifies the reliability of judicial sales, enhances predictability for financial corporations and bidders, and signals that the Supreme Court will not tolerate litigation tactics that weaponise procedural loopholes to keep controversies alive indefinitely.