CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAversusC. L. VIMLA & ORS.

                          (2015) 5 S.C.R. 200


A                     CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

                                   v.
                         C. L. VIMLA & ORS.
B                  (Civil Appeal No. 4043 of2015)

                           APRIL28, 2015

         [J. CHELAMESWAR AND PINAKI CHANDRA
                      GHOSE,JJ.]
c
             Auction: Mortgage of property to the appellant-bank
     for raising loan for family business- Default in repayment of
     loan - OA by bank before ORT - ORT referred matter for
     settlement before Lok Ada/at - Award passed whereunder
D    borrower agreed to pay Rs. 33.5 lacs as final settlement -
     Writ petition by first respondent-guarantor seeking setting
     aside of the award of Lok Ada/at on the ground that settlement
     was not within her knowledge as she had not signed the joint
     memo - Writ petition dismissed and writ appeal was permitted
E    to be withdrawn with liberty to approach Lok Ada/at for
    appropriate relief- Meanwhile auction was conducted- High
     Court Lok Ada/at held that guarantor not being a party to the
    joint memo, the decree was not binding on her - Auction
    purchaser filed writ petition challenging the inherent power
F   of Lok Ada/at, the action of the ORT in deciding interim
    applications filed by guarantor and possession by auction
    purchaser- High Court held that as the guarantor was not a
    party to the Joint Memo, the decree would not be binding on
    her; that as sale was not done as per mandate of sale
G   proclamation, the auction was not valid - On appeal, Held:
    In view of s. 128 of Contract Act, liability of the guarantor is
    co-extensive with that of the principal debtor- Therefore, first
    respondent cannot escape her liability as a guarantor- The
    son of first respondent who signed the joint memo and first
H   respondent resided in the same house and therefore there
                                 200
      CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. C. L. VIMLA& ORS.              201


is no reason why she would not know of the joint memo when A
she knew about the proceedings - The conduct of
respondent-borrowers showed that they were not willing to
repay the loan amount - On the other hand, auction
purchaser had deposited the money after bonafidely
participating in auction and suffered for long time to pay price B
by participating in auction proceedings - Since the auction
purchaser has already paid the full amount of sale
consideration and is in possession of the property in question
for more than about 8 years, for equity and good conscience,
his possession is not interfered with and the order passed by   c
 the High Court is set aside - Contract Act - s. 128 - Equity.

       Allowing the appeals, the Court

       HELD: 1. The liability of the guarantor is co-
extensive with that of the principal debtor unless it is D
otherwise provided by the contract. In the present case,
the first respondent cannot escape from her liability as
a guarantor for the debt taken by the principal debtor. In
the loan agreement, which is the contract, there was no
clause to show that the liability of the guarantor is not E
co-extensive with the principal debtor. Therefore Section
128 of the Indian Contract Act will apply here without any
exception. [Paras 11, 12] [210-D-E]

      2. There is no reason why the Joint Memo, which F
states compromise arrived at between the appellant-
Bank and the principal debtors, would not bind first
respondent when under Clause (2) she has admitted that
any judgment or award obtained by the Bank against
the principal debtor would bind the parties. The G
respondent, and her son, who had signed the join1t
memo, were residing in the same house. There is no
reason why the Respondent would not know of the joint
memo, when she could have by reasonable means made
herself aware of the proceedings. [Paras 14 and 15] [211- H
E-F]
202       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 5 S.C.R.

 A        3. First respondent filed writ petitions one after
   the other. The said writ petitions were also dismissed by
   the High Court. She had life interest of 1/6th share in the
   property in question. She was residing with her son
   respondent No.3 and was under his care and custody
B and said respondentNo.3 categorically stated before the
   S~te Legal Services Authority on his behalf and on
   behalf of other defendants, including his mother, first
   respondent in respect of the settlement. The Court on a
   number of occasions granted time to deposit the amount
c to meet the liabilities of the bank by the respondents.
  But time and again, they failed to comply with the orders.
  Respondent Nos.3 to 8 who were actual owners of the
  property in dispute have remained ex-parte throughout,
  i.e. from the date of filing of petition challenging the
o award. The first respondent had the only right of
  residence in respect of the property in question. She did
  not dispute the fact that she was the guarantor in the
  transaction by which her sons took loan from the Bank.
  [Paras 16, 17) [211-G-H; 212-A-E]
E        4. Respondent Nos.4, 6 & 7 filed a claim petition
   before the Recovery Officer claiming their share of
  balance of sale proceedings after adjustment of the dues
  of the Bank which shows that the parties accepted the
  award passed by the Lok Ada lat The High Court did not
F consider the said facts and the fact that the auction
  purchaser has purchased the auctioned property for sale
  consideration of Rs.3.27 crores and 25% of the sale
  consideration was duly paid by the auction purchaser.
  The sale was confirmed and the sale certificate was also
G issued in his favour after paying the requisite stamp duty
  and registration fees. The auction purchaser was put in
  possession of the property and is still in possession of
  the property. The auction purchaser submitted that he
  has purchased the property by availing private
H
     CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. C. L. VIMLA& ORS.             203



borrowing for the said property and he is paying nearly A
Rs.5 lakhs per month as interest. Therefore, the equity
and good conscience also has to play a role in the given
facts and after considering the conduct of the
respondents in the matter. The High Court failed to
appreciate these facts and wrongly held that the auction B
purchaser is a party to the negligence of the Recovery
Officer and, accordingly, the sale was set aside. The
auction purchaser had nothing to do in holding the
auction. Rather he deposited the money after bonafidely
participating in the auction and, in fact, suffered for long c
time to pay a price by participating in auction
proceedings. The conduct of the principal debtors also
cannot be overlooked. Since the auction purchaser has
already paid the full amount of sale consideration and is
in possession of the suit property for more than about 8 o
years, for equity and good conscience, his possession
is not interfered with and the impugned order is set
aside. [Paras 18 to 20] [212-E-H; 213-A-H]

   Ram Kishun and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2012)
   11 SCC 511: 2012 (6) SCR 105; United Bank of India        E
   v. Bengal Behar Construction Company Ltd. and Ors.
   (1998) 8 sec 653 - relied on.

                    Case Law Reference
                                                             F
       2012 (6) SCR 105          relied on.    Para 11
       (1998) 8 sec ss3          relied on.    Para 14

      CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
4043 of 2015.
                                                             G
      From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2010 of the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No.
17544 of2007 (GM-RES)

                          WITH                               H
204        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A C. A. Nos. 4044-4046 of 2015

            Jaideep Gupta, P. H. Parekh, Dhruv Mehta, Dinesh
    Mathur, Jyoti Dastidar (for Dua Associates), Naresh Kumar,
    B. Vishwanathan Bhandarkar, Ritika Sethi, Ajay Awasthi, T. K.
8   Tiwari, B. Sridhar for the appearing parties.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. Leave granted.

c         2.These appeals, by special leave, arise from the
    Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2010 passed by the Division
    Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ
    Petition No.3531 of2007, Writ Petition No.17320 of2007 and
    Writ Petition No.17544 of 2007, whereby Writ Petition No.3531
    of 2007 filed by C.L. Vimla was allowed while Writ Petition
0
    Nos.17320 and 17544 of 2007 filed by the auction purchaser
    and Central bank of India respectively, were dismissed.

          3. The facts material to the present case are that
    Respondent No.1 C.L. Vim la who is a senior citizen aged about
E   85 years, is the guarantor. The appellant Central Bank of India
    is the Bank to whom the property involved in the present case,
    was mortgaged. The property involved in the present case is
    a residential house which was purchased by the husband of
    C.L. Vimla, namely, C.L.Narsimhaiah Shetty, under a sale deed
F   dated 10.06.1997. She is in possession of the property along
    with other family members. Her husband, during his life time,
    executed a Will dated 31.05.1995 bequeathing his undivided
    share in favor of his sons equally and while settling the property
    he granted life interest in favour of the guarantor. However, he
G   has not authorized her to sell or mortgage the property. The
    property was mortgaged in favour of Central Bank of India
    (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") for raising a loan of
    Rs.17 ,50,000/-for family business. The business suffered loss.
    Consequently, as the respondents were unable to repay the
H   mortgage: amount, the Bank filed O.A. No.309/2002 before
      CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. C. L. VIMLA & ORS.              205
            [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore. The Debt Recovery A
Tribunal referred the case for settlement before Lok Adalat.
The High Court Legal Services Committee considered the
reference and passed an award whereunder the borrower have
agreed to pay Rs.33,50,000/- as final settlement of the claim
of the Bank. This settlement was not within the knowledge of B
the guarantor C.L. Vimla as she had not signed the joint memo.
One of her sons N. Surya Bhagavan has signed it. Her advocate
has also signed the Joint Memo. It was only on 5.4.2006 when
she learnt that the property has been ordered to be sold by
 auction. She also learnt about the signing of Joint Memo by c
 N.Surya Bhagavan and the Bank. So she filed Writ Petition
 No.6625 of 2006 before the High Court of Karnataka for setting
aside the award dated 20.03.2004 of the Lok Adalat, as far
 as she was concerned. The High Court by an order dated
 1.06.2006, dismissed the writ petition on the ground of Iaches. o
Thereafter, she filed Writ Appeal No.899 of 2006, which was
 permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to approach the Lok
Adalat for appropriate relief. Thereafter, the guarantor
 approached the LokAdalat by filing an application under Order
 9 Rule 13 read with Sections 21 and 25 of Legal Services E
 Authority Act, 1987 on 03.10.2006.
       4. During pendency of the writ petition, the Recovery
Officer conducted auction on 5.10.2006. The guarantor filed
an interim application being I.A. 1464/2006 on 17 .10.2006
before the ORT for setting aside the same. The office of the F
ORT raised an objection stating that the application amounted
to an appeal. The Guarantor requested the ORT on 2.11.2006
not to confirm the sale since her case was pending before the
Lok Ada lat at High Court. The copy of the bid sheet did not
contain the full particulars of the auction purchasers. Thus, she G
moved an application seeking stay of delivery of property. On
28.11.2006, the ORT directed the Recovery Officer not to
deliver the property to the auction purchaser until further orders.
 In the meanwhile, the auction purchaser filed the applications
                                                                 H
206        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A seeking vacation of the Interim orders. On 22.01.2007, the
  interim order was vacated by the DRT in the absence of the
  appellant. Thus, the guarantor continued in possession till
  31.1.2007. The auction purchaser moved an application on
  01.02.2007 for recalling the order dated 22.01.2007: On
B 5.02.2007, the High Court LokAdalatpermitted the appellant
  to request the DRT to defer the proceedings. An application
  made in this regard was dismissed on 22.2.2007. The High
  Court LokAdalat held on 5.2.2007 that the guarantor not being
  a party to the joint memo to referring the matter to the Lok
c Adalat, the decree is not binding on her. While the guarantor
  was agitating her right in the property, the sale conducted is
  not valid in law, so she sought for setting aside the sale.

         5. In Writ Petition No.17320 of 2007, the auction
  purchaser contends that he is the auction purchaser in the
0
  auction conducted by the Recovery Officer in pursuance of
  order passed by ORT in OA No.309 of 2002 and as per
  Certificate No.3264 issued by DRT on 5.10.2006. The auction
  purchaser has purchased the property for Rs.3.27 crores. In
  pursuance of the deposit the sale was confirmed on
E 15.11.2006.

        6. The High Court of Karnataka, in the impugned
  judgment, has dealt with the issues individually. The Court had
  framed issues on the inherent power of the Lok Adalat, the
F action of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in deciding the
  interim applications filed by the guarantor and the possession
  by the auction purchaser and payment of solatium to the Central
  Bank of India. On the issue of the inherent power of the Lok
  Adalat, the High Court after relying on a number of decisions
G he!d that as the guarantor was not a party to the Joint Memo,
  the decree would not be binding on her. Regarding the validity
  of the sale, the High Court held that the sale was not done as
  per the mandate of the sale proclamation which said that the
  sale was to be conducted part by part and stopped as soon
H as the decree amount was realized. Thus, the High Court held
      CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. C. L. VIMLA & ORS.                    207
            [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

that the auction was violative of Order 21 Rule 64. It also A
rejected the plea for solatium of 20% of the Central Bank of
India.

        7. The learned counsel for the appellant conten,ds that
the respondent cannot seek recalling of the settlement which          B
was entered into between the Lender and the Borrower. The
appellant contends that there is no provision under the Legal
Services Authority Act, 1987 ("the Act", for short) which entitles
the Lok Adalat to set-aside or adjudicate on its own orders.
 Under Section 21 of the Act of 1987 the awards of the Lok            C
Adalat are given the status of a decree of a Civil Court and
finality is given to them. Under Section 21 (2), no appeal lies to
any Court against the award. The High Court has erred in
upholding that the settlement entered into between the Bank
and Borrower can be recalled at the behest of the Guarantor
after 3 years of the settlement order being passed. The High          D
Court has not appreciated Clause 2 of the Form of Guarantee
that was executed by Respondent No.1 in favour of the Bank.
She cannot escape liability merely on the ground of being
unaware, after 3 years, when a letter dated 26.12.2006 was            E
written by the learned counsel for the respondents to the
learned counsel for the Bank, making an offer to settle the
matter by paying Rs.33.50 Lakhs as per award dated
20.03.2004. The High Court has failed to appreciate that
 Respondent No.1 and her family members had availed loan
 for business purposes. They were unable to repay the loan            F
amount. Thus, it is apparent that various proceedings were
 initiated by Respondent No.1 with a ma/a fide and fraudulent
 intent to stall the recovery proceedings. The High Court failed
to appreciate that huge amounts exceeding Rs.52,45,967/-
 were due, as on 20.03.2004, to a public institution and inspite      G
 of expiry of more than 10 years the Bank has not realized the
 amounts due. The High Court also failed to appreciate that
 the sale of mortgaged property was effected under provisions
 of Income Tax (Certificate proceedings) Rules. The sale was
                                                                      H
208        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 5 S.C.R.


A effected as per Rule 60 and Rule 61. The High Court failed to
  appreciate that the mortgaged property comprised of a
  residential house, car shed, vacant portico and open space
  and it was not possible to sell only a portion thereof. The learned
  counsel for the appellant finally concluded that the High Court
B was not justified in rejecting the request made by the appellant
  that if for any reason the Court came to the conclusion that the
  auction of the property is to be set-aside, 20 per cent of the
  bid money should be awarded to the appellant Bank as
  solatium.
c         8. The learned counsel for Respondents contends that
     the appellant has suppressed material facts, that the award
     passed by the LokAdalat was without her consent and further,
     the sale proceedings were null and void. Originally the
     partnership firm called Satyashree Silks had raised a loan of
0    Rs.17.5 lakhs from Central Bank of India. The Counsel forthe
     Respondents contends that she has got nothing to do with the
    firm. When the matter was pending before the DRT, N. Surya
     Bhagavan, Respondent No.2 signed a Joint Memo for referring
    the matter to the Lok Ada lat. The counsel for the Respondents
E   stated that Joint Memo was not signed by the Respondents.
    No notice was issued on the Joint Memo to the Respondents.
    Before the Lok Adalat, Respondents alleges that the Joint
    Memo was filed whereunder the partners of Satyashree Silks
    would repay the sum of Rs.33,50,000/-. The learned counsel
F   contends that N. Surya Bhagavan had no authority to enter
    into a contract on behalf of the Respondents. After lapse of
    two years, the property was attached and notice of
    proclamation for sale was published on the ground of non-
    payment of amount. It was only at this juncture that the
G   Respondents came to know of the settlement. As soon as the
    answering respondent came to know of the proclamation and
    auction sale notice of the property, she preferred a writ petition
    before the Karnatar.a High Court, being W.P. No.6625/2006.
    The High Court dismissed the writ petition by its order dated
H
       CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. C. L. VIMLA &ORS.                          209
             [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

01.06.2006. The Respondents thereafter preferred a writ A
appeal being W.A. No.899/2006 and the High Court permitted
the Respondents to approach the Lok Ada lat for recalling of
the award passed.

      9. Learned counsel for the respondents further contends 8
that when the recall application of the respondents was pending
before the Lok Adalat, the appellant published sale
proclamation. In the proclamation it was stated specifically that
the property would be put for sale in lots, and it was further
directed that if the amount is realized from sale of 1st lot, the C
sale would be stopped immediately. As per the contention of
the Respondents, this vital document had been suppressed.
As per the sale proclamation itself, it is clear that the dues as
on that day were only Rs.52,45,967. On that very day the auction
was finalized for Rs.3.27 crores when actually the worth of the D
property was more than 5 crores. The auction sale was a
collusive sale.

      10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
       11. We are of the opinion that the questions that need to E
be decided by us are regarding the liability of the guarantor
under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The
legislature has succinctly stated that the liability of the guarantor
is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless it is
otherwise provided by the contract. This Court has decided F
on this question, time and again, in line with the intent of the
legislature. In Ram Kishun and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.,
(2012) 11 SCC 511, this Court has held that "in view of the
provisions of Section 128 of the Contract Act, the liability of
the guarantor/surety is co-extensive with that of the debtor." G
The only exception to the nature of the liability of the guarantor
is provided in the Section itself, which is only if it stated explicitly
to be otherwise in the Contract.
      12. In the case of Ram Kishun (supra), this Court has
                                                                            H
210        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015) 5 S.C.R.


A also stated that it is the prerogative of the Creditor alone
  whether he would move against the principal debtor first or the
  surety, to realize the loan amount. This Court observed:

       "Therefore, the creditor has a right to obtain a decree
B      against the surety and the principal debtor. The surety
       has no right to restrain execution of the decree against
       him until the creditor has exhausted his remedy against
       the principal debtor for the reason that it is the business
       of the surety/guarantor to see whether the principal debtor
       has paid or not. The surety does not have a right to dictate
c      terms to the creditor as to how he should make the
       recovery and pursue his remedies against the principal
       debtor at his instance".
  Thus, we are of the view that in the present case the guarantor
D cannot escape from her liability as a guarantor for the debt
  taken by the principal debtor. In the loan agreement, which is
  the contract before us, there is no clause which shows that the
  liabil.ity of the guarantor is not co-extensive with the principal
  debtor. Therefore Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act will
E apply here without any exception.
        13. After a thorough reading of the Form of Guarantee
  for Advances & Credit Generally, our attention has been drawn
  to Clause 2 where Respondent No.1, C.L. Vimala and one of
F her sons N. Ramesh Babu, have stated under the relevant part
  of the clause as under:
      "2) ..... .in relation to the subject matter of this guarantee
      or any judgement or award obtained by you against the
      principal debtor shall be binding on us ...."
G
          14. This Court has held in United Bank of India v. Bengal
    Behar Construction Company Ltd. and others, (1998) 8 SCC
    653, that the Clauses in the letter of guarantee are binding on
    the guarantors as follows:
H
      "In view of the above, the question regarding confirmation
       CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. C. L. VIMLA &ORS.                 211
             [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

   of the decree against the guarantors now needs to be            A
   settled ................... we see no reason why the
   guarantors should not be made liable under the letters of
   guarantee, the terms whereof clearly stipulate that on the
   failure of the principal debtor to abide by the contract,
   they will be liable to pay the amount due from the principal    B
   debtor by the appellants. Clause 15 of the letter of
   guarantee, in terms states that any action settled or
   stated between the bank and the principal debtor or
   admitted by the principal debtor shall be accepted by
   the guarantors as conclusive evidence. In view of this          c
  stipulation in the letter of guarantee, once the decree
   on admission is passed against the principal debtor,
   the guarantors would become liable to satisfy the decree
  jointly and severally."
                                     (Emphasis suppiied)           D

Thus, we see no reason why the Joint Memo, which states
compromise arrived at between the Central Bank of India and
the principal debtors, would not bind C.L. Vimla when under
Clause (2) she has admitted that any judgment or award E
obtained by the Central Bank of India against the principal
debtor would bind the parties.
       15. The mere fact of ignorance cannot be a valid ground.
The respondent, C.L. Vimala and her son, N.Surya Bhagavan F
who signed the joint memo, were residing in the same house.
We see no reason why the Respondent would not know of the
joint memo, when she could have by reasonable means made
herself aware of the proceedings.
      16. It appears that respondent No.1 Smt. C.L. Vimla filed G
writ petitions one after the other, being Writ Petition No.6625
of 2006 filed on 111 June, 2006, and another writ petition, being
Writ Petition No.8186 of 2006, was filed by her two sons on
2Qlh June, 2006. The said writ petitions were also dismissed
by the High Court. Smt.C.L. Vimla had life interest of 1/6lh share H
212       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015) 5 S.C.R.


A in the property in question. It is not in dispute that Smt.C.L.
  Vimla was residing with her son respondent No.3 and was
  under his care and custody and it appears from the facts that
  the said respondent No.3 categorically stated before the State
  Legal Services Authority on his behalf and on behalf of other
B defendants, including his mother, the respondent No.1, in
  respect of the settlement dated 20th March, 2004. We have
  further noticed that the Court on a number of occasions granted
  time to deposit the amount to meet the liabilities of the bank
  by the respondents. But it appears that, time and again, they
c have failed to comply with the orders.
          17. The respondent Nos.3 to 8 who were actual owners
  of the property in dispute have remained ex-parte throughout,
  i.e. from the date offiling of Miscellaneous Petition dated 291h
  April, 2006, challenging the award dated 201h March, 2004.
D Respondent No.1 had the only right of residence in respect of
  the property in question. She did not dispute the fact that she
  was the guarantor in the transaction by which her sons took
  loan from the Central Bank. It is also not in dispute that the
E property was mortgaged with the Bank.

         18. We cannot brush aside the fact that respondent Nos.4,
  6 & 7 filed a claim petition before the Recovery Officer on 4th
  January, 2007 claiming their share of balance of sale
  proceedings after adjustment of the dues of the Central Bank
F which shows that the parties to the dispute have accepted the
  award passed by the LokAdalat. It appears to us that the High
  Court did not consider the said facts and further it has escaped
  from the mind of the High Court that the auction purchaser has
  purchased the auctioned property for sale consideration of
G Rs ..3.27 crores and 25% of the sale consideration was duly
  paid on 5th October, 2006 and furthermore on 19th October,
  2006, the balance amount of sale consideration was duly paid
  by the auction purchaser. We have further noted that the sale
  was confirmed on 15th November, 2006. The sale certificate
H was also issued in favour of the auction purchaser after paying
  the requisite stamp duty and registration fees which, as pointed
        CENTRALBANKOFINDIA v. C.L.VIMLA&ORS.                         213
             [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

out to us on behalf of the auction purchaser, to the tune of          A
Rs.30,73,800/-. It is also not in dispute that auction purchaser
was put in possession of the property and is still in possession
of the property since the sale certificate was issued and
registration was made in his favour. It is submitted on behalf of
the auction purchaser that he has purchased the property by           B
availing private borrowing for the said property and he is paying
nearly Rs.5 lakhs per month as interest. Therefore, in our
opinion, the equity and good conscience also has to play a
role in the matter in question on the given facts and after
considering the conduct of the respondents (C.L. Vimla and            c
others) in the matter. In these circumstances, we feel that it
would not be proper for us at this stage to set aside the sale,
as has been done by the High Court without taking into
consideration all these facts. Further, the High Court has failed
to appreciate these facts and wrongly held that the auction           D
purchaser is a party to the negligence of the Recovery Officer
and, accordingly, the sale was set aside. In our opinion, the
auction purchaser had nothing to do in holding the auction.
Rather he deposited the money after bonafidely participating
in the auction and, in fact, suffered for long time to pay a price    E
by participating in auction proceedings.

      19. In these circumstances, we further noticed that the
principal debtors were not prepared to pay back the amount
to the Bank and did not choose to defend themselves properly.
The conduct of the principal debtors also cannot be overlooked F
by us.

      20. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the
High Court and hold that since the auction purchaser has
already paid the full amount of sale consideration and is in G
possession of the property in question for more than about 8
years, for equity and good conscience, we do not intend to
interfere with his possession and we, therefore, set aside the
order passed by the High Court, and allow these appeals.
                                                               H
Devika Gujral                                     Appeals allowed.