Mandatory payment deadline in auction sales renders a belatedly completed sale void, leaving civil court jurisdiction intact.

Failure by auction-purchasers to pay the balance 75% of the purchase money within the statutory time under the Punjab Land Revenue Act rendered the auction-sale void, because the deposit and payment requirements were mandatory and no extension of time was permissible; acceptance of belated payment and later confirmation could not validate a sale already ineffective in law. A civil suit to protect possession and challenge the sale certificate was not barred by the ouster provision, because a civil court is not excluded where the revenue authority acts without jurisdiction on the basis of a void sale. The sale certificate conferred no legal right on the purchasers, and the suit was maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether failure by the auction-purchasers to pay the balance 75% of the purchase money within the time prescribed by Section 88 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 rendered the sale void. (ii) Whether a civil suit to protect possession and challenge the sale certificate was barred by Section 158(2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.

Issue (i): Whether failure by the auction-purchasers to pay the balance 75% of the purchase money within the time prescribed by Section 88 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 rendered the sale void.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the highest bidder to deposit 25% immediately under Section 85 and to pay the balance within 15 days under Section 88. Those requirements were treated as mandatory. On default, the authority had no discretion to extend time; the only lawful course was re-sale. Acceptance of the balance after expiry of the prescribed period and the subsequent confirmation of sale could not validate a transaction that had already become ineffective in law.

Conclusion: The sale was void and no title passed to the auction-purchasers.

Issue (ii): Whether a civil suit to protect possession and challenge the sale certificate was barred by Section 158(2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.

Analysis: The suit was not one to set aside a sale that existed in law, but one to resist threatened dispossession on the strength of a sale certificate issued after a void sale. Where the revenue authority acts without jurisdiction, the civil court is not excluded by the bar contained in Section 158(2). The suit therefore fell outside the ouster clauses relied upon by the auction-purchasers.

Conclusion: The civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Final Conclusion: The auction-sale and sale certificate could not confer any legal right on the purchasers, and the respondent's civil suit was maintainable to protect possession. The appeal therefore failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-compliance with a mandatory statutory requirement for payment of the sale price within the prescribed time renders the auction-sale a nullity, and a civil court retains jurisdiction to restrain dispossession based on a void act done without jurisdiction.

---