- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sadhucharan Patri v. Sudarshan Patri And Others
Summary of the Legal Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal arises from a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The suit land originally belonged to the appellant (defendant in the suit). According to the record, Jadumani Patri obtained a decree against the defendant in Money Suit No. 126 of 1930. In execution of that decree the suit land was put to court auction and the plaintiff purchased it at the court sale. The opinion records two sets of sale dates in the text: one passage states that the plaintiff purchased the land for Rs. 25 on 16-9-1942 and that the sale was confirmed on 16-2-1943 and the plaintiff obtained a sale-certificate; another passage (later in the judgment) states that the sale took place on 16-2-1962 and was confirmed on 16-2-1963. When the plaintiff sought delivery of possession after the sale, the defendant allegedly promised to hand over possession amicably but later failed to deliver possession on various pretexts. The plaintiff filed the present suit on 13-9-1954. The trial court (the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack) confirmed relief in favour of the plaintiff (rejected the defendant's contentions), and the defendant appealed to the court whose opinion is summarized here.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the execution in which the suit property was put to sale was barred by limitation and whether that point could be raised at this stage.
- Whether the plaintiff (auction-purchaser) was required to proceed by an application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in the execution proceedings (and thus whether a separate suit for possession was maintainable).
- Whether the 1956 Amendment to the Explanation to Section 47 (adding “a purchaser at a sale in execution of the decree” as a party) applies retrospectively to suits pending before the amendment came into force.
- Whether a dispute between an auction-purchaser and the judgment-debtor concerning delivery of possession is a question “relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree” within Section 47 CPC.
- Whether the plaintiff’s suit (for recovery of possession) was within time under the law of limitation (specifically Article 138 of the Limitation Act as applied in the authorities cited).
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Case
- The plaintiff purchased the suit land in a court sale and obtained the sale-certificate.
- When the plaintiff sought delivery of possession, the defendant represented that he would hand over possession amicably without court intervention, but ultimately failed to deliver possession on various pretexts.
- Accordingly, the plaintiff instituted the suit on 13-9-1954 for declaration, title and recovery of possession.
Defendant's (Appellant's) Case
- The defendant asserted that he had paid the decretal dues to the plaintiff in good faith so that the plaintiff could remit the amount to the decree-holder (Jadumani Patri) and obtain a satisfaction receipt; the defendant contended that the plaintiff instead used that sum to purchase the suit property and misrepresented to the defendant that the dues had been paid.
- The defendant claimed he believed the decretal dues had been satisfied and only discovered the plaintiff's alleged fraud when the present suit was filed.
- The defendant argued the execution in which the property was sold was itself barred by limitation (on the basis that an earlier execution was time-barred), and relied on an information-sheet (Ex. A) to show the third execution case was barred by limitation.
- The defendant contended the plaintiff, as an auction-purchaser (and, in his submission, representative of the decree-holder), should have resorted to an application under Section 47 CPC in the execution proceedings and that a separate suit for possession was therefore not maintainable.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Harnath Rai v. Hirdai Narain, AIR 1953 Pat 242 | Res judicata principle applies to execution proceedings. | Relied upon to support the proposition that a point (such as limitation) not raised at the appropriate stage in execution proceedings is treated as decided against the party entitled to raise it. |
| Smt. Akshoykumari Debi v. Naliniranjan Mukherjee, AIR 1950 Cal 493 | Res judicata principle in execution proceedings (supporting authorities). | Used alongside Harnath Rai to justify rejection of the appellant's late objection on limitation in execution proceedings. |
| Anant Gopal Sheorey v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 915 | Procedural changes operate retrospectively; no vested right to a particular mode of procedure. | Applied to hold that the 1956 Amendment to the Explanation to Section 47 CPC (effective 1-1-1957) applies retrospectively to cases pending when the amendment took effect, making the auction-purchaser a party for purposes of Section 47. |
| Mst. Suraj Dei … J.D v. Mst. Gulab Dei … D.H, (AIR 1955 All 49) (Full Bench) | Held that an auction-purchaser's right to possession flows from being highest bidder and not from the decree; such claims are not necessarily within Section 47 CPC; auction purchaser is not a representative of the decree-holder. | The court preferred this Full Bench view and relied on it to conclude that the dispute between auction-purchaser and judgment-debtor does not fall within Section 47 CPC and thus may be pursued by separate suit, governed by limitation under Article 138 where applicable. |
| Kedarnath v. Arun Chandra, AIR 1937 All 742 (Full Bench) | Earlier Full Bench authority on the status of auction purchasers and related principles (relied upon in Suraj Dei). | Referenced as earlier authority underpinning the Full Bench conclusion in Suraj Dei that auction purchasers are not representatives of decree-holders for purposes of Section 47. |
| Hargovind Fulchand v. Bhudar Raoji, AIR 1924 Bom 429 (Full Bench) | Held that claim for possession by a decree-holder-auction-purchaser is not within Section 47 CPC; possession arises from auction purchase status. | Adopted as supporting authority for the proposition that separate suits for possession by auction-purchasers are maintainable and not barred by Section 47. |
| Tribeni Prasad Singh v. Ramaasray Prasad, AIR 1932 Pat 80 (Patna Special Bench) | Held that a suit by a decree-holder-auction purchaser for recovery of possession is not barred by Section 47 and is governed by Article 138 of the Limitation Act (12-year period from date sale became absolute). | Relied upon to conclude the plaintiff's suit was within time under Article 138 and that the suit was maintainable rather than being required to proceed under Section 47 CPC. |
| Ramavtar Laxman Prasad v. Mt. Jagranibai, AIR 1956 Nag 81 | Held that where a judgment-debtor resists delivery of property sold to a stranger auction-purchaser, that stranger purchaser is a representative of the decree-holder and the dispute falls under Section 47 CPC. | Not followed by the court; mentioned as a contrary High Court authority (Nagpur) which was given preference by some other benches but rejected here in favour of the Full Bench decisions of Bombay, Allahabad and Patna. |
| Wahidulla Khan v. Ramkrishna, 1962 Jab. LJ (SN) 72 (Madhya Pradesh High Court single judge) | Followed the Nagpur view that an auction purchaser may be a representative of the decree-holder when the judgment-debtor resists delivery. | Mentioned as another contrary decision which the court did not follow; the court preferred the Full Bench decisions of Bombay, Allahabad and Patna instead. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's reasoning proceeded in several linked steps (drawing strictly on the text of the opinion):
- Findings of Fact: Both the trial court and the appellate court below had concurrently found as a fact that the defendant did not in fact pay the decretal dues to the decree-holder through the plaintiff. The present appellate court declined to disturb that concurrent finding because the appellant's counsel did not properly challenge it.
- Limitation Objection in Execution: The appellant argued that the execution which led to the sale was itself barred by limitation (relying on an information-sheet, Ex. A). The court rejected this point because the appellant failed to raise objection on limitation at the appropriate stage in the executing court. The court invoked established principles (including res judicata as applied to execution proceedings) to hold that a point which ought to have been raised but was not, is deemed decided against the party who could have raised it. Authorities cited for this principle included Harnath Rai and Smt. Akshoykumari Debi.
- Section 47 CPC — Amendment and Retrospective Operation: The court set out Section 47 CPC and the Explanation. By the 1956 Amendment the words “and a purchaser at a sale in execution of the decree” were inserted into the Explanation, making an auction-purchaser a party for the purposes of Section 47. Although the suit was filed in 1954, the court held the appellate court below was incorrect to apply pre-amendment procedure to the matter. Relying on Anant Gopal Sheorey (Supreme Court), the court accepted the principle that changes in procedure operate retrospectively. Consequently, the amended Explanation to Section 47 applies and the auction-purchaser is a party under Section 47; further, Sub-section (2) of Section 47 gives the executing court power to convert a proceeding into a suit or vice versa (and to order additional court-fees if necessary).
- Substance over Form — Whether the Dispute Falls Within Section 47: Despite acknowledging the amended Explanation, the court identified and addressed the crucial legal question: does the present dispute (an auction-purchaser seeking delivery of possession from the judgment-debtor) fall within the scope of Section 47 — i.e., does it “relate to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree”? The court surveyed authorities and noted that several Full Benches (Allahabad, Bombay) and a Patna Special Bench had held that a claim for delivery of possession by an auction-purchaser does not relate to execution/discharge/satisfaction of the decree because the purchaser’s right to possession arises by virtue of being the highest bidder (the auction sale) rather than any immediate right flowing from the decree itself. Those authorities also held an auction purchaser is not the representative of the decree-holder vis-à-vis the judgment-debtor. The court preferred these Full Bench decisions to contrary single-judge or Nagpur High Court authorities which had taken the opposite view where the auction purchaser was treated as a representative of the decree-holder when the judgment-debtor resisted delivery.
- Limitation Governing Suits by Auction-Purchasers: The court referred to the Patna Special Bench decision (Tribeni Prasad Singh) that suits by decree-holder-auction purchasers for recovery of possession are governed by Article 138 of the Limitation Act (12 years from the date sale became absolute). Applying those authorities and the facts as found, the court concluded the suit was within time under Article 138.
- Conclusion on Maintainability: Synthesizing the factual findings (that the defendant had not paid the decretal dues through the plaintiff), the principle that procedural amendments operate retrospectively, the preference for Full Bench authorities that such disputes are not within Section 47, and the application of Article 138 on limitation, the court concluded the plaintiff's suit was maintainable and within the prescribed period.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The court's final decision was to dismiss the appeal; accordingly the trial court's decision in favour of the plaintiff stands. The court emphasized that the plaintiff's suit is bound to succeed. In the language requested for emphasis:
APPEAL DISMISSED
Immediate implications for the parties:
- The plaintiff's suit for declaration, title and recovery of possession succeeds and the judgment/relief granted below is affirmed.
- The appellant's contention that the execution was barred by limitation was rejected because the appellant had not raised that objection in the executing court; the court applied res judicata principles applicable to execution proceedings.
- The appellant's contention that the plaintiff should have proceeded under Section 47 CPC (and that a separate suit was therefore not maintainable) was rejected: while the court found the amended Explanation to Section 47 (post-1956) applies retrospectively, it followed Full Bench and other authoritative decisions holding that a dispute between an auction-purchaser and the judgment-debtor over delivery of possession does not, in substance, relate to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and therefore may be the subject of a separate suit governed by Article 138 (12-year limitation) where applicable.
Broader legal implications discussed in the opinion (as applied by the court):
- The court adopted the principle that procedural amendments (here, the 1956 Amendment to the Explanation to Section 47 CPC) operate retrospectively, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Anant Gopal Sheorey v. State of Bombay.
- The court expressed a clear preference for the Full Bench authorities of the Allahabad and Bombay High Courts and the Patna Special Bench (Tribeni Prasad Singh) over contrary High Court decisions (Nagpur; single-judge Madhya Pradesh), thereby endorsing the line of authority that treats an auction-purchaser's right to possession as arising from the auction sale rather than as a matter of execution of the original decree under Section 47 CPC.
The opinion did not state that it was laying down any novel precedent beyond applying and preferring existing Full Bench and Supreme Court authorities; the direct effect is the dismissal of the appeal with costs and the affirmation of the plaintiff's victory below.
End of summary — prepared strictly from the content of the provided opinion.
1. This is a defendant's appeal against the confirming decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, arising out of a suit for declaration title and recovery of possession. The suit land originally belonged to the defendant. One Jadumani Patri obtained a decree against the defendant in money suit No. 126 of 1930 and in execution, of the said decree put the suit land to auction, and the plaintiff purchased it in the Court sale for a sum of Rs. 25/- on 16-9-42 and the said sale was confirmed on 16-2-43 and the plaintiff obtained the requisite sale-certificate from the Court. The plaintiff's case is that when he wanted to take delivery of possession, the defendant told him not to put him to further unnecessary expenses and he would deliver possession of the suit-land amicably without intervention of the Court. In the long run, however, the defendant did not deliver possession of the, suit land on various pretexts and accordingly the plaintiff filed the present suit on 13-9-54 for the reliefs stated above.
2. It is the case of the defendant that both he and the plaintiff are the Sevaks of Baladev Jiew of Kendrapara and are on friendly terms and the defendant in good faith paid the entire decretal dues to the plaintiff in order to handover the same to the decree-holder Jadumani Patri and to obtain the full satisfaction receipt. But the plaintiff instead of paying the same to Jadumani purchased the suit property with the said sum and gave out to the defendant that he in fact paid the money to the decree holder. The defendant was all along under the impressions that the decretal dues had been satisfied and came to know of the fraud of the plaintiff only when the present suit was filed. His, further plea was that the execution case in which the suit property was put to sale was fourth in point of time and was barred by limitation since the third Execution case was itself barred having been filed on 19-9-39 after the expiry of three years from 4-7-36 the date of disposal of the Second Ex. Case. It was contended that the plaintiff-auction-purchaser being a representative of the decree-holder the appropriate remedy for him was to file an application under Section 47 of the CPC and the present suit was accordingly not maintainable.
3. The Court below rejected all the contentions raised on behalf of the defendant. Hence this appeal by the defendant.
4. Both the courts below found as a fact that the defendant did not in fact pay the decretal dues to the decree-holder through the plaintiff as alleged by him, and this concurrent finding of fact was not rightly challenged before me by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant. He, however, raised the following propositions of law. (i) That the further Execution case in which the suit property was put to sale was itself barred by limitation. For this purpose he relied upon Ex. A an information-sheet said to have been given by the concerned clerk to show that the 3rd Execution Case was barred by limitation, the same having been filed after three years from the date of disposal of the second Execution case. Admittedly the appellant had not raised any objection on the question of limitation when the proceeding was continuing in the Executing Court. The learned appellate Court therefore rightly rejected this plea of the defendant. It cannot be disputed that if a point which ought to have been raised is not raised at the appropriate stage, then it will be deemed to have been decided against the person who was entitled to raise it. It is well settled that the principle of res judicata also applies to the Execution Proceedings as would appear from the decision in Harnath Rai v. Hirdai Narain, AIR 1953 Pat 242, Smt. Akshoykumari Debi v. Naliniranjan Mukherjee, AIR 1950 Cal 493. Thus it was no more open to the appellant to contend that the present execution in which the suit property was put to sale, was barred by the law of limitation.
5. It was next contended by Mr. Mohanty that in view of the explanation added to Section 47 of the CPC, the plaintiff-auction purchaser should have proceeded with an application under the said section in the execution case itself, and a separate suit is not maintainable. To appreciate this argument, it is necessary to state the provisions of Section 47 of the CPC at this stage:
“Section 47. (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.
(2) The Court may, subject ta any objection as to limitation or jurisdiction, treat a proceeding under this section as a suit or a suit as a proceeding and may, if necessary, order payment of any additional Court-fees.
(3) ………………
EXPLANATION:
6. For the purposes of this Section a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a Defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed, are parties to the suit.
7. By the Amendment Act of 1956 the words “and a purchaser at a sale in execution of the decree” were added to the above explanation thus bringing the plaintiff-auction purchaser in this suit as a party to the proceeding. The above amendment came into force on the 1st January, 1957. The learned appellate Court, however, was of the view that the suit having been filed in 1954, the suit will be governed by the procedure before the above amendment came into force. Here, however, the learned apelate Court was wrong. After a series of decisions of the Supreme Court that the law of procedure operates retrospectively, this point is no longer open to any doubt. In a case reported in Anant Gopal Sheorey v. State Of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 915 their Lordships held that no person has a vested right to any course of procedure. He has only the right of prosecution or defence in the manner prescribed for the time being by or for the Court in which the case is pending and if by an Act of Parliament the mode of procedure is altered he has no other right than to proceed according to the altered mode. In other words a change in the law of procedure operates retrospectively and unlike the law relating to vested light is not only prospective. In view of this position of law, the amended explanation applies to the case and the plaintiff-auction-purchaser now becomes a party in an application under Section 47 of the CPC. It is also open to the Court under Sub-sec. (2) quoted above to convert a suit to a proceeding or a proceeding to a suit.
8. Mr. Mohanty made a request to remand the case to the lower appellate court with the direction to convert this suit to a proceeding under Sec. 47. I would have no hesitation to concede to this request, but for the further difficulties in the way. The next and the main question is whether a dispute of the present nature is one relating to execution, discharge of satisfaction of the decree under Section 47 of the CPC. There are a number of authorities of different High Courts in India holding the view that an application by the auction-purchaser for delivery of possession does not relate to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree.
9. A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in a case Mst. Suraj Dei…J.D v. Mst. Gulab Dei…D.H ., reported in (S) AIR 1955 All 49 (FB), held that the right of decree holder to have the property sold and possession delivered to him flows from his being the highest bidder and not from the decree. The position, therefore, of a decree-holder is exactly the same as that of any other person who bids at an auction? sale. An application for delivery of possession cannot be made by the decree-holder as such, as the decree gives him no such right. It is an application by him as the auction purchaser of the property. The mere fact that the executing Court is authorised after it has confirmed the sale in favour of the auction-purchaser to direct delivery of possession to him, does not necessarily make it a question relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within Section 47 of the CPC. It was further held-in that case that the auction purchaser is not a representative of the decree-holder but of the judgment-debtor and any dispute arising between the auction-purchaser and the judgment-debtor would amount to a dispute between the judgment-debtor and his own representative and cannot come under Section 47 of the CPC. While laying down the above, their Lordships relied upon one of their earlier Full Bench decision reported in Kedarnath v. Arun Chandra, AIR 1937 All 742 (FB).
10. A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in a case reported in Hargovind Fulchand v. Bhudar Raoji, AIR 1924 Bom 429 (FB), held that the claim for possession by a decree-holder-auction-purchaser is not within Section 47 of the CPC. The decree-holder purchaser does not seek to get possession in the execution of the decree, but by virtue of his being declared a purchaser at the auction sale. The question also directly came up for consideration before a Special Bench of the Patna High court where the question that was considered was where a suit instituted by the decree-holder-auction purchaser or his representative-in-interest for recovery of possession of the property purchased in execution of the decree is barred by the provisions of Section 47 of the CPC. In other words, whether the decree-holder who becomes a purchaser of the property sold in execution of his own decree ceases as such to be a party to the suit and whether the question relating ta the delivery of possession of the property purchased by the decree-holder is a question relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. The question was answered in the negative and their Lordships held that the suit instituted by the decree-holder-auction purchaser or his re-presentative-in-interest for recovery of possession of the property purchased in execution of the decree is not barred by the provisions of Section 47 of the CPC and the suit is governed by Article 138 of the Limitation Act, which provides a period of limitation for 12 years from the date when the sale became absolute. Tribeni Prasad Singh v. Ramaasray Prasad, AIR 1932 Pat 80.
11. Mr. Mohanty, however, relied upon a decision of the Nagpur High Court, in Ramavtar Laxman Prasad v. Mt. Jagranibai, AIR 1956 Nag 81, where their Lordships relying upon a previous decision of their own Court held that when the judgment-debtor is offering resistance to the delivery of the property sold in execution to a stranger auction purchaser the stranger auction, purchaser is a representative of the decree-holder and the dispute is one under Section 47 of the CPC.
12. Mr. Mohanty also drew my attention to the 1962 Jab. LJ (SN) 72, where the learned single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh followed the aforesaid decision of the Nagpur High Court in the case of Wahidulla Khan v. Ramkrishna. None of the above decisions, however, took note of the Full Bench decisions of the High Court of Bombay, Allahabad and Patna, referred to above, with which I entirely agree in preference to the view expressed by the Nagpur High Court.
13. As already seen, the sale took place on 16-2-1962 and it was confirmed on 16-2-1963 and the suit was therefore filed within twelve years and thus within time under Article 138 of the Limitation Act, and in view of the position of law discussed above, the suit is also maintainable. No other point was raised. Thus the plaintiff's suit is bound to succeed and the appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
FH/V.B.B
14. Appeal dismissed.
Alert