Summary of this article
Supreme Court allows injunction for auction buyer already in possession.
Formal delivery under CPC not necessary if possession exists.
Court sets aside High Court ruling, restores appeal for reconsideration.
The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the buyer at a court sale can seek protection from interference with the property without proving the formal delivery of possession of the property.
Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan have stated that the moment the sale at the court auction is confirmed, the property belongs to the purchaser at the auction sale. If the purchaser is already in possession of the property at the time of filing the suit for injunction, the absence of the formal delivery of possession of the property as provided in Order XXI Rule 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, will not prevent the court from granting the injunction.
Property Dispute Originated In Tamil Nadu
The case originated from a property dispute in Tamil Nadu. Originally, the property belonged to a person named Ganapathy. A decree was passed against Ganapathy. During the execution of the decree, the property was put up for sale through a court auction sale and was purchased by Ramasamy.
Later, the property was transferred to the appellant through a registered sale deed on October 15, 1991.
At the same time, another party also claimed property ownership on the basis of a registered will, which was allegedly executed by Ganapathy prior to his death.
Each party filed separate cases for permanent injunctions against the other.
Evidence Of Possession
The trial court's judgment was in favour of the appellant and threw out the respondent's suit. It held that the appellant had proved the possession by documentary evidence. These included revenue records and tax receipts, electricity bills and documents relating to a tapioca mill operating on the property under the appellant's name.
The first appellate court also accepted the findings of the trial court and gave a judgment in favour of the appellant, stating that the appellant had proved possession by producing the required documents.
High Court Decision Set Aside by Supreme Court
However, the Madras High Court partly granted the second appeal and quashed both injunction suits. It said that even though the appellant had acquired title since he had obtained it by a registered sale deed, there was no proof that possession was formally delivered through the process under Order XXI Rule 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant decided this case before the Supreme Court.
SC did not agree with the reasoning of the High Court. It said that the requirement of formal delivery is rendered irrelevant when the auction purchaser is already in possession of the property. The court further added that such a purchaser cannot be denied protection from interference from someone who does not have a better legal claim.
The bench also pointed out that the High Court had not framed any substantial question of law on the earlier findings relating to possession or examined the documentary evidence on which the lower courts based their findings.
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment given by the High Court and revived the second appeal for fresh consideration.
