Court auction title extends only to property described in the sale certificate, not to an unmentioned house

In a court auction sale, title passes only to the property actually sold and described in the sale certificate; the Transfer of Property Act provisions governing private transfers do not enlarge that title to include an unmentioned structure. The dakhalnama is only evidence of delivery of possession and does not found title. Admissions in a party's pleading remain binding unless explained, while a witness's admission does not bind the party. On the facts stated, no adverse possession was established. The purchaser was entitled only to the open land, while the occupants were entitled to protect possession of the house by injunction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in an auction sale of immovable property, the purchaser acquired title only to the land described in the sale certificate or also to the house standing thereon; (ii) whether the dakhalnama was the basis of title or defence and required proof as such; (iii) whether admissions in a party's written statement or by a witness were binding so as to establish title or possession; and (iv) whether the parties were entitled to possession or permanent injunction in respect of the house and open land separately.

Issue (i): Whether, in an auction sale of immovable property, the purchaser acquired title only to the land described in the sale certificate or also to the house standing thereon.

Analysis: The sale certificate showed auction of only the parti land forming part of plot No. 905. Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, being part of the law governing transfers by act of parties, did not govern a court auction sale. Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act was likewise inapplicable. In a court sale, title is determined from what the court intended to sell and what is shown in the sale certificate. Since neither the sale proceedings nor the sale certificate mentioned the house, the auction purchaser acquired title only to the land sold.

Conclusion: The auction purchaser acquired title only to the open land and not to house No. 587.

Issue (ii): Whether the dakhalnama was the basis of title or defence and required proof as such.

Analysis: The dakhalnama was only a record of delivery of possession. The title of the auction purchaser flowed from the sale certificate, not from the dakhalnama. As the dakhalnama was not the foundation of title, it was not required to be proved as the basis of the claim or defence, though it could be looked at as evidence of possession.

Conclusion: The dakhalnama was not the basis of title or defence and did not determine ownership.

Issue (iii): Whether admissions in a party's written statement or by a witness were binding so as to establish title or possession.

Analysis: An admission in a pleading is binding on the maker unless explained or shown to be erroneous. By contrast, an admission by a witness is not binding on the party, though it may be used for contradiction or inference. The appellants failed to displace their own admissions regarding plot No. 905, and the witness admission relied upon by them could not confer title on them. Concurrent findings also showed that their occupation of the open land was permissive and did not amount to adverse possession.

Conclusion: The appellants were bound by their own admissions, but not by a witness's admission; no title by adverse possession was established.

Issue (iv): Whether the parties were entitled to possession or permanent injunction in respect of the house and open land separately.

Analysis: The appellants remained in possession of house No. 587, while the respondent proved title only to the open land comprised in plot No. 905. A person in possession is entitled to an injunction against all except the true owner. Since the respondent was not proved to be the owner of the house, the appellants were entitled to protect their possession over it. Conversely, the respondent was entitled to recover possession only of the open land.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to permanent injunction for house No. 587, and the respondent was entitled to possession of the open land only.

Final Conclusion: The decree was modified so that the appellants succeeded in relation to the house and the respondent succeeded only in relation to the open land, with the rival claims disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: In a court auction sale, title passes only to the property actually sold as disclosed by the sale certificate, and neither Section 5 nor Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act enlarges that title to include a structure not mentioned in the sale proceedings.

---