Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a purchaser of immovable property in execution proceedings was bound to file the sale certificate along with the application for possession, and whether absence or delayed issue of the certificate affected limitation under Article 180 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
Analysis: The application for possession had to satisfy Article 180, which speaks only of a purchaser and does not make production of the sale certificate a condition precedent. The certificate under Order 21, Rule 94 was held to be merely evidence of title and not a title deed. The rights of the auction-purchaser were traced to Section 65 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which property vests from the time of sale and the vesting relates back when the sale becomes absolute. Order 21, Rule 95 did not require the certificate to accompany the possession application, and delay in issuing the certificate did not extend or control limitation.
Conclusion: The sale certificate was not a sine qua non for the possession application, the application was within limitation, and the objection based on absence of the certificate failed.
Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Article 180 of the Limitation Act, 1908, a sale certificate is only evidence of title and not a condition precedent to an application for possession by the auction-purchaser.