- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Kali Kishore Deb Sarkar v. Guru Prosad Sukul
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant purchased a share of a taluk at an execution sale but failed to pay the balance of the purchase money. Subsequently, a resale occurred at a significantly lower price. Both Courts held that the appellant was liable to make good the deficiency under Section 293 of the Procedure Code. The decree-holder, who sought to enforce this payment, is the respondent in the appeal. Prior to the resale, the appellant applied under Section 313 of the Code to set aside the first sale on the ground that the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest in the property. The Courts refused to set aside the sale, holding that the misdescription of the property was immaterial since the judgment-debtor had no other interest in the relevant mouzahs, and that the appellant, a co-sharer, must have known what he was buying. The property was sold first for Rs. 3,200 and then at resale for Rs. 850. The decree-holder was allowed to bid at the second sale with certain restrictions.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an appeal lies against an order enforcing payment of deficiency under Section 293 of the Procedure Code.
- Whether the appellant is liable to pay the deficiency arising from the resale under Section 293 when there was a misdescription of the property sold at the first sale.
- Whether the misdescription of the property at the resale affects the liability of the appellant to make good the deficiency.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- There was no such property as the one sold at the first sale.
- The decree-holder and judgment-debtor made false representations regarding the property sold.
- The purchaser at the second sale was a mere benamidar (nominee) of the decree-holder.
Respondent's Arguments
- The appellant must make good the deficiency under Section 293 of the Procedure Code.
- The misdescription of the property was immaterial and the appellant, as co-sharer, was aware of the nature of the property.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sree Narain Mitter v. Mahatab Chand (1865) 3 W. R. 3 | Appeal lies against orders under Section 293 of the Procedure Code. | Followed as binding precedent establishing the right of appeal. |
| Sooruj Buksh Singh v. Sree Kishen Doss (1866) 6 W. R. Mis. 126 | Appeal lies against orders under Section 293 of the Procedure Code. | Followed as binding precedent establishing the right of appeal. |
| Joobraj Singh v. Gour Buksh Lall (1867) 7 W. R. 110 | Appeal lies against orders under Section 293 of the Procedure Code. | Followed as binding precedent establishing the right of appeal. |
| Baij Nath Sahai v. Moheep Narain Singh (1889) I.L.R. 16 Cal. 535 | Appeal lies against orders under Section 293 of the Procedure Code. | Followed as binding precedent establishing the right of appeal. |
| Amir Baksha Sahib v. Venkatachala Mudali (1895) I.L.R. 18 Mad. 439 | Support for appeal lying under similar procedural circumstances. | Used to reinforce the position that appeals lie against such orders. |
| Deoki Nandan Rai v. Tapesri Lal (1892) I.L.R. 14 All. 201 | Held that no appeal lies against orders under Section 293. | Not followed; dissenting opinions noted indicating appeal may lie. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first addressed the preliminary objection regarding the right to appeal, concluding that appeal lies under Section 293 based on a consistent line of prior decisions dating back to 1865. The Court then analyzed the facts surrounding the misdescription of the property sold at the first sale. Although the first sale involved a misdescription, the Court accepted the lower Courts' findings that the judgment-debtor had no other interest in the relevant mouzahs and that the appellant, as co-sharer, knew what he was buying. However, the Court emphasized that before holding the appellant liable for the deficiency under Section 293, the property sold in both sales must be identical in every respect. The Court found that the property described at the second sale was not the same as that sold at the first sale, at least ostensibly, and that the decree-holder was aware of the misdescription but still proceeded with the resale under the same incorrect description. This conduct by the decree-holder prevented him from holding the appellant liable for the deficiency. The Court declined to consider hypothetical scenarios regarding proper description at the second sale, focusing strictly on the facts as presented.
Holding and Implications
The Court set aside the orders of both lower Courts and rejected the decree-holder's application to hold the appellant liable for the deficiency.
The appellant was relieved from the obligation to pay the deficiency arising from the resale due to the misdescription and the decree-holder's conduct in proceeding with the resale under a known incorrect description. The appellant was awarded costs in this Court. No new precedent was established beyond affirming the principle that liability under Section 293 requires identity of the property sold in both sales and that a decree-holder cannot evade difficulties by knowingly misdescribing the property in resale proceedings.
1. The appellant having purchased a share of a taluk at an execution sale failed to pay the balance of the purchase-money, and there was a resale at which the price realised was much smaller than the price realized at the first sale. Both Courts have held that the appellant must make good the deficiency according to the terms of Section 293 of the Procedure Code. The decree-holder is the person seeking to enforce the payment and the respondent in the appeal.
2. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies, but there is a current of decisions in this Court dating from 1865, showing that an appeal does lie, and we feel bound to follow them. The cases are Sree Narain Mitter v. Mahatab Chand (1865) 3 W. R. 3; Sooruj Buksh Singh v. Sree Kishen Doss (1866) 6 W. R. Mis. 126; Joobraj Singh v. Gour Buksh Lall (1867) 7 W. R. 110; and Baij Nath Sahai v. Moheep Narain Singh (1889) I.L.R. 16 Cal. 535. No decision to the contrary has been cited, although the question has been raised in several other cases but not decided. The first three cases were under the Code of 1859 as amended by Act XXIII of 1861, but there is in this respect no substantial difference between the old Code and the present Code. The Madras Court has taken the same view in Amir Baksha Sahib v. Venkatachala Mudali (1895) I.L.R. 18 Mad. 439. The Allahabad Court took a different view in Deoki Nandan Rai v. Tapesri Lal (1892) I.L.R. 14 All. 201 and held that there was no appeal. But it may be noticed that Mr. Justice STRAIGHT dissented, and Mr. Justice Knox seems to have held that an appeal would lie from an adjudication in proceedings to enforce an order under Section 293.
3. In all the cases in which it was held that an appeal lay the question was regarded as one under section 244 of the present code, or the corresponding section of the old Code, so that if there is an appeal at all there is no doubt as to the right of second appeal. It seems that before the resale the appellant applied to have the first sale set aside under Section 313 of the Code on the ground that the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest in the property. It was found that what was sold was the judgment-debtor's interest in a shikmi taluk called Radha Govind Biswas with a rental of Rs. 890 odd, and comprising certain mouzahs, hi smuts and paras, whereas what was advertised and put for sale was his interest in a shikmi taluk called Ram Govind Biswas with a rental of Rs. 495, but comprising the same mouzahs, kismuts and paras. The first Court refused to set aside the sale, holding that the misdescription was immaterial, as the judgment-debtor had no other shikmi taluk in those mouzahs, and that the appellant, who was his co-sharer, must have known this and understood quite well what he was buying. The order rejecting the application was upheld by the Appellate Court on the same grounds. The property was put up at the first sale, realised Rs. 3,200, the next highest bidder-being the decree-holder, and when put up at the second sale under precisely the same description, it realised Rs. 850. The decree-holder had obtained leave to bid at the second sale, provided he did not bi(sic) 100.
4. The appellant resisted the attempt to make him liable on three grounds: first, that there was no such property as the one sold; second, that the decree-holder and judgment-debtor had made false representations to him as to the property which was being sold; and, third, that the purchaser at the second sale was a mere benamidar of the decree-holder. His objections were overruled by both Courts without any inquiry, and an order was made for the realization of the deficiency by the process prescribed for the execution of decrees. We cannot, of course, interfere with the order under Section 313, or with the order confirming the second sale, which it appears has been confirmed, but the question is whether on the facts as stated above the appellant is liable for the deficiency, and we must hold that he is not in any view of the case.
5. Before the defaulting purchaser can be made liable under Section 293, it must appear that the property which is the subject of the two sales is the same in every respect. If the Courts were right in holding in the proceeding under Section 313 that, notwithstanding the misdescription, the property sold on the first occasion was the judgment-debtor's share in shikmi taluk, Radha Govind Biswas, bearing a rent of Rs. 890, it is clear that is not what was put up for sale on the second occasion, ostensibly at-least. It may be said that the same property was really sold, but that there was a misdescription on both occasions. Assuming this to be so, it makes no difference. If there was a misdescription on the first occasion the decree-holder was aware of it, and he ought not to have had the property again proclaimed for sale under a description which he knew to be wrong. Having done that lie cannot make the defaulting purchaser answerable for the deficiency.
6. It is not necessary to consider what would have happened if the property which the Courts considered was the property sold on the first occasion, had bean rightly described on the second, as we must deal with the facts as they are. Possibly in that case the decree-holder might have found himself in a difficulty in attempting to realize from the defaulting purchaser any deficiency in the price. He cannot, however, be allowed to evade that difficulty by having the property proclaimed for sale under a description which he knew to be wrong.
7. We set aside the order of both Courts. The application of the decree-holder fails and must be rejected. The appellant will get his costs in this Court.
Alert