https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199122 The Supreme Court considered whether an auction purchaser in execution of a mortgage decree could obtain actual physical possession from occupants who were tenants created after the decree. It held that Order XXI Rules 95 and 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure controlled the remedy: Rule 95 permits actual possession only against the judgment-debtor, persons claiming through him, or persons holding under a title created after attachment, while Rule 96 applies where the property is occupied by tenants or other persons entitled to occupy, limiting the purchaser to symbolic possession. The appeal succeeded and the direction for physical possession was set aside. en-us Tue, 10 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Feb 2018 17:51:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199122 The Supreme Court considered whether an auction purchaser in execution of a mortgage decree could obtain actual physical possession from occupants who were tenants created after the decree. It held that Order XXI Rules 95 and 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure controlled the remedy: Rule 95 permits actual possession only against the judgment-debtor, persons claiming through him, or persons holding under a title created after attachment, while Rule 96 applies where the property is occupied by tenants or other persons entitled to occupy, limiting the purchaser to symbolic possession. The appeal succeeded and the direction for physical possession was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 10 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199122