Nellikkottu
Kolleriyil Madhavi Vs. Kavakkalathil Kalikutty & Ors [1996] INSC 1532 (29 November 1996)
K. Ramaswamy,
G.T. Nanavati
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Leave
granted.
We
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
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 certificate, Exh. A-2 dated January 28, 1958 was given to the respondents. They
had also filed and application for delivery of possession of the property which
had come to be delivered under Ex. A-3 dated 21.7.1963. After taking delivery
of the possession on October
20, 1961, they
assigned the Plaint Schedule property to the plaintiff. Under those
circumstances, the question arises; whether they are 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 perspective.
Accordingly,
in second appeal, the High Court has gone into that 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
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 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.
Back
Pages: 1 2
