As-is-where-is auction sale terms bind the purchaser; known possession issues do not justify rescission or refund.

An auction purchaser who accepted a court-sanctioned sale on an as is where is basis, with knowledge of existing occupation and resumed status of the plot, could not later rescind the transaction or seek refund merely because full possession was delayed. The record showed that the purchaser knew the encumbrances from the outset, obtained possession of the vacant portion, and repeatedly sought to defer payment and alter the bargain while withholding the balance consideration. The order cancelling the sale and directing refund with interest was found unsustainable because it ignored these material facts and the purchaser's contractual obligations. The sale terms remained binding and the outstanding amounts had to be cleared.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the auction purchaser was entitled to avoid the court-confirmed sale and seek refund of the deposit on the ground of alleged defective title and incomplete delivery of possession; (ii) whether the order setting aside the sale and directing refund with interest could be sustained.

Issue (i): whether the auction purchaser was entitled to avoid the court-confirmed sale and seek refund of the deposit on the ground of alleged defective title and incomplete delivery of possession.

Analysis: The sale notice, the sale committee proceedings, and the later agreement made it clear that the property was sold on an as is where is basis, that the purchaser was aware of the tenant's occupation and the resumed status of the plot, and that transfer was to follow only after full payment. The purchaser accepted those terms, obtained possession of the vacant portion, and thereafter repeatedly sought directions and modifications to delay payment and alter the bargain. The record showed that the alleged deficiency in possession was known from the outset and that the purchaser had invoked the Court's process to pursue possession-related reliefs before shifting to a demand for refund.

Conclusion: The purchaser was not entitled to rescind the sale or claim refund on the stated grounds.

Issue (ii): whether the order setting aside the sale and directing refund with interest could be sustained.

Analysis: The impugned order proceeded on conjectures and ignored material facts showing the purchaser's prior knowledge of the encumbrances, its contractual obligation to pay the balance consideration, and the Corporation's steps in relation to the resumed plot and the tenant dispute. The Court found that the purchaser had enjoyed the property without paying the balance price and that the reasoning for cancellation of the sale was legally unsustainable. The equities also did not justify cancellation in favour of a party that had changed its stand after using the litigation process to postpone payment.

Conclusion: The order cancelling the sale and directing refund was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the cancellation of the auction sale was undone, and the purchaser remained bound by the sale terms and liable to clear the outstanding amounts, failing which the Corporation could proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A purchaser at a court-sanctioned auction who accepts a sale expressly on an as is where is basis and with knowledge of existing occupation cannot later rescind the transaction and seek refund merely because possession of the entire property is delayed, where the purchaser's own conduct shows acceptance of the contractual terms and non-payment of the balance consideration.

---