Pezhumkattil Ahammed Kutty Vs. C.M. Abdul Malick & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4340 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 142 of 2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 142 of 2000)
Petitioner: Pezhumkattil Ahammed Kutty
Respondent: C.M. Abdul Malick & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4340 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 142 of 2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 142 of 2000)
Judges: M.B. SHAH & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 31, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW/ PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE CODE
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 21, Rule 90 – Setting aside of sale – High Court confirming the orders – However, judgment debtor directed to deposit 18% interest and costs – Auction-purchaser in possession and enjoying usufructs. Held that orders of interest is set aside, but appellant to bear additional costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
Held:
Where the auction purchaser is in possession and is getting usufruct of the land, there is no question of compensating him by directing the judgment debtor to pay interest on the amount deposited by him for purchasing the land. Hence, the impugned order passed by the High Court directing the appellant to pay interest @ 18% per annum requires to be set aside and is hereby set aside.
(Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. In the present case the High Court, while confirming the order passed by the District Court setting aside the auction sale, has directed the judgment debtor to deposit Rs. 1,12,500/- with 18% interest per annum for the period from 27.12.1989 till the date of deposit as also Rs. 3,000/- as costs of proceedings within one month from that date.
3. It has been pointed out that in pursuance of the District Court’s order, on 7.6. 1999 the appellant has deposited Rs. 1,12,500/-. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel that on the basis of the auction, the possession of the auction – property was handed over to the respondents-auction purchasers and that has been recorded by the District Judge in his order in paragraph 11 wherein it is stated that auction-purchaser is in possession of the property which is a coconut garden and that he was taking yield from the property, so he cannot
claim any interest over the amount paid by him.
4. It appears that the High Court has not noticed the aforesaid material facts while granting interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit of the auction amount. In such cases, where the auction purchaser is in possession and is getting usufruct of the land, there is no question of compensating him by directing the judgment debtor to pay interest on the amount deposited by him for purchasing the land. Hence, the impugned order passed by the High Court directing the appellant to pay interest @ 18% per annum requires to be set aside and is hereby set aside. However, considering the facts it is ordered that the appellant shall pay additional cost of Rs. 10000/- in addition to Rs. 3000/- as ordered by the High Court on or before Ist September, 2000.
5. The civil appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. In the present case the High Court, while confirming the order passed by the District Court setting aside the auction sale, has directed the judgment debtor to deposit Rs. 1,12,500/- with 18% interest per annum for the period from 27.12.1989 till the date of deposit as also Rs. 3,000/- as costs of proceedings within one month from that date.
3. It has been pointed out that in pursuance of the District Court’s order, on 7.6. 1999 the appellant has deposited Rs. 1,12,500/-. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel that on the basis of the auction, the possession of the auction – property was handed over to the respondents-auction purchasers and that has been recorded by the District Judge in his order in paragraph 11 wherein it is stated that auction-purchaser is in possession of the property which is a coconut garden and that he was taking yield from the property, so he cannot
claim any interest over the amount paid by him.
4. It appears that the High Court has not noticed the aforesaid material facts while granting interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit of the auction amount. In such cases, where the auction purchaser is in possession and is getting usufruct of the land, there is no question of compensating him by directing the judgment debtor to pay interest on the amount deposited by him for purchasing the land. Hence, the impugned order passed by the High Court directing the appellant to pay interest @ 18% per annum requires to be set aside and is hereby set aside. However, considering the facts it is ordered that the appellant shall pay additional cost of Rs. 10000/- in addition to Rs. 3000/- as ordered by the High Court on or before Ist September, 2000.
5. The civil appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
