TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court clarifies limitation period for possession applications by auction purchasers</h1> The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and reinstated the First Court's ruling in a case concerning the interpretation of the limitation ... - Issues:- Interpretation of the period of limitation for filing an application for delivery of possession by an auction purchaser.- Application of the Privy Council decision in Chandra Manu Sahu v. Anarjan Bibi regarding the starting point of limitation for possession.- Understanding the significance of the sale certificate in relation to the limitation period for application under Order 21 Rule 95.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the interpretation of the period of limitation for filing an application for delivery of possession by an auction purchaser. The High Court allowed the revision petition of the first respondent, holding that the first respondent was entitled to take possession of the purchased house. The appellant objected, citing the limitation prescribed under Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as a bar to the first respondent's application. The High Court's understanding of the Privy Council decision in Chandra Manu Sahu v. Anarjan Bibi was crucial in this case. The Privy Council had ruled that the period of limitation for possession applications runs from the date of the order on appeal, not from the issuance of the sale certificate. The High Court's error lay in misinterpreting this ruling, leading to a flawed decision (para 2-3).The judgment delves into the legal principles governing court sales and the significance of the sale certificate in determining the limitation period for possession applications. It clarifies that the sale becomes absolute after a specific period post-sale, during which it can be set aside. The confirmation of the sale by the court marks its absoluteness, not the issuance of the sale certificate. The certificate merely acts as evidence of title, not the trigger for the limitation period under Article 134. The Court emphasizes that the sale certificate is a formal acknowledgment, not a title-creating document, and its delay does not affect the limitation for possession applications (para 4-5).The judgment highlights precedents like Rama Krishna Rao v. Challayamma and Ganpat Singh v. Kailash Shankar, which support the interpretation that the limitation for possession applications starts from the date of the appellate court's order, not the sale certificate issuance. The legislative intent behind the limitation period is to expedite possession proceedings for auction purchasers. Any delay in issuing the sale certificate does not impact the limitation period, as the title vests upon sale confirmation, not certificate issuance. The High Court's erroneous view on the limitation start point could disrupt settled legal principles (para 6-7).In conclusion, the Supreme Court allows the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and reinstating the First Court's decision. The first respondent is advised to pursue a regular suit for possession if necessary, without any order as to costs. The judgment reaffirms the importance of adhering to established legal interpretations and principles in determining the limitation period for possession applications by auction purchasers (para 8).
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
