Supreme Court of India

NELLIKKOTU KOLLERIYIL MADHAVIversusKAVAKKALATHIL KALIKUTTY AND ORS.

Citation: 1996 INSC 1416
Decided: 29 November 1996
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG T NANAVATI

Holding

The perpetual injunction granted by the High Court is not vitiated by any error of law; the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The respondents purchased a schedule property in execution of a decree and were issued a sale certificate and possession. They later assigned the property to the plaintiff and sought a perpetual injunction to prevent the appellant from interfering with possession. The trial and appellate courts had accepted the appellant's case, but the Kerala High Court held that material documents, including the sale certificate and possession order, were not properly considered. The Supreme Court examined whether the non‑consideration of such material evidence constituted a substantial question of law and whether the injunction should stand. It affirmed that a purchaser at a court auction obtains title upon issuance of the sale certificate and delivery of possession, and that the lower courts' omission was indeed a substantial legal error. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court's injunction was not vitiated by any error of law and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the respondents, having purchased the property in a court auction and obtained possession, are entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with possession.
Whether the lower courts' failure to consider material evidence (sale certificate and possession order) amounts to a substantial question of law warranting interference by the Supreme Court.

Subjects

auction saleperpetual injunctionsale certificatepossessionmaterial evidencesubstantial question of lawcivil appeal

Judgment

               NELLIKKOTIU KOLLERIYIL MAD HAVI                                  A
                                     v.
              KAVAKKALATHIL KALIKUTIY AND ORS.

                          NOVEMBER 29, 1996

             [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVAT!, JJ.]                              B

       Auction sale-Respondents purchased the property in execution of
decrees-Sale certificate issued to them and possession of property also given
to them-Thereafter respondents assigned the schedule prope1ty to plain-
tiff-Respondents seeking pe1petua/ injunction restraining appellant from in-    C
terfering with possession-Trial Court and Appellate Court accepted the case
of appellant-High Cowt held that there was non-consideration of mate1ia/
evidence by Courts be/ow-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held, non-con-
sideration of the material evidence is a substantial question of /aw-The
perpetual injunction granted by the High Court in the second appeal is not
vitiated by any eTTor of law much less substantial question of law waTTanting   D
interference.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 15612 of
1996.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 24.5.93 of the Kerala High               E
Court in S.A. No. 368 of 1989.

      K. Sukumaran, Ms. Baby Krishnan and N. Sudhakaran, for the
appellant.

        M.P. Vinod for the Respondents.                                         F
        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

        Leave granted.

        We have heard learned counsel on both sides.                            G
      This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of
the Kerala High Court dated May 24, 1993, made in SA No. 368 of 1989.
The respondents had purchased the Plaint Schedule property in execution
of the decrees in OS No.262/1955 on the file of the Court of the District
Munsiff, Parappanangadi. The sale cerificate, Exh. A-2 dated January 28, H
                                    385
    386                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A 1958 was given to the respondents. They had also filed an application for
  delivery of possession of the property which had come to be delivered
  under Ex. A-3 dated 21.7.1961. After taking delivery of the possession on
  October 20, 1961, they assigned the plaint Schedule property to the plain-
  tiff. Under those circumstances, the question arises: whether they are
B entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from
  interfering with his possession? Though the trial Court and the appellate
  Court had accepted the case of the appellant, the High Court has pointed
  out that aforesaid documents are material for deciding the controversy and
  the courts below had not considered those documents in proper perspec-
  tive. Accordingly, in second appeal, the High Court has gone into that
C question. It is settled law that the person who purchases the property in a
  court auction sale, gets title to the property by sale certificate issued by the
  court as true owner and after confirmation of the sale, he gets possession
  thereof. In view of the fact that Plaint Schedule property was delivered to
  Sankaran under Ex. A-3 on July 21, 1961, he lawfully came into possession
D and the same was delivered in turn to the plaintiffs. Non-consideration of
  the material evidence is a substantial question of law.

           Under these circumstances, the perpetual injunction granted by the
    High Court in the second appeal is not vitiated by any error of law much
    less substantial question of law warranting interference. The appeal is
E   accordingly dismissed. If the appellant has got any title independent of this,
    it is open to him to have the right established in accordance with law.

    T.N.A.                                                    Appeal dismissed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "auction sale"Sign in to search