Auction purchaser not entitled to crops on land sold in execution. Judgment-debtor entitled to restitution.

The appellate court held that the auction-purchaser did not automatically acquire title to the growing crops on the land sold in execution of a money realization decree. The judgment-debtor was entitled to restitution for the crops, and the case was remanded to determine the crop value. The court set aside previous judgments, ruling the purchaser was not entitled to the crops. The judgment-debtor was awarded costs, and counsel fees were set at Rs. 300 for all courts.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the auction-purchaser acquires title to the growing crops on the land sold in execution of a decree for money realization.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Title to Growing Crops on Execution Sale:
The primary issue in this case is whether the auction-purchaser automatically acquires title to the growing crops on the land sold in execution of a decree for the realization of money. The judgment-debtor argued that the crops were neither attached nor sold in execution of the decree, and thus, the auction-purchaser should not be entitled to them. The executing court and the learned Single Judge had previously held that the title to the growing crops passed to the purchaser automatically. However, this contention was rejected by the appellate court.

Legal Provisions and Precedents:
- Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act: This section indicates that a transfer of property includes all interest which the transferor is capable of passing, including things attached to the earth. However, Section 2(d) of the Act exempts transfers in execution of a decree from this provision.
- Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act: Defines "immovable property" to include land and things attached to the earth, but this is superseded by Section 2(13) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which states that "moveable property includes growing crops."
- Code of Civil Procedure: Growing crops are considered moveable property and must be specifically attached and sold to pass to the purchaser. The court emphasized that the proclamation of sale did not mention growing crops, indicating they were not intended to be sold.

Analysis of Relevant Cases:
- Abdul Aziz Khan Sahib v. Appayasami Naicker: The Privy Council held that the extent of the property sold depends on what the court intended to sell and what the purchaser understood he was buying.
- S.M. Jakati v. S. M. Borker: The Supreme Court reiterated that what passes to the auction-purchaser is a question of fact, dependent on what was put up for sale, what the court intended to sell, and what the purchaser understood he was buying.
- Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal v. Bhagirath Mahto: The Calcutta High Court held that growing crops pass with the land in a court sale, but this was not based on the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Court's Conclusion:
The court concluded that growing crops do not pass to the purchaser automatically unless they are specifically sold along with the land. The judgment-debtor is entitled to restitution for the crops taken by the auction-purchaser. The court set aside the judgments of the executing court and the learned Single Judge, holding that the purchaser was not entitled to the crops standing on the land at the time of possession.

Remand for Determination of Crop Value:
The case was remanded to the executing court to determine the value of the crops grown on the land to which the judgment-debtor is entitled. The judgment-debtor was awarded costs throughout, and counsel's fees were set at Rs. 300/- for all courts.

Summary:
The appeal was allowed, and it was held that the auction-purchaser did not automatically acquire title to the growing crops on the land sold in execution of a decree for money realization. The judgment-debtor was entitled to restitution for the crops. The case was remanded to the executing court to determine the value of the crops, and the judgment-debtor was awarded costs throughout.

---