https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299694 In execution proceedings, an auction-purchaser seeking possession was not required to file the sale certificate with the application, because Article 180 of the Limitation Act, 1908 refers only to a purchaser and does not make production of the certificate a condition precedent. The sale certificate under Order 21, Rule 94 was treated as evidence of title, not as a title deed, while the purchaser's rights were traced to Section 65 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which title vests from the time of sale and relates back when the sale becomes absolute. Delay or absence in issuing the certificate did not affect limitation under Order 21, Rule 95. en-us Mon, 10 Nov 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Dec 2021 11:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299694 In execution proceedings, an auction-purchaser seeking possession was not required to file the sale certificate with the application, because Article 180 of the Limitation Act, 1908 refers only to a purchaser and does not make production of the certificate a condition precedent. The sale certificate under Order 21, Rule 94 was treated as evidence of title, not as a title deed, while the purchaser's rights were traced to Section 65 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which title vests from the time of sale and relates back when the sale becomes absolute. Delay or absence in issuing the certificate did not affect limitation under Order 21, Rule 95. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 10 Nov 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299694