Sale Proclamation - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court held that Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC bars judgment debtors from challenging an execution sale on grounds they could have raised before the sale proclamation was drawn up. Failure to object to the sale of an entire property, rather than a sufficient part, at the appropriate stage precludes a subsequent challenge under Order XXI Rule 90. Facts Of The Case: In 1995, decree-holder Rasheeda Yasin filed a suit for recovery of ₹3.75 lakhs against Komala Ammal and her son K.J. Prakash Kumar. An ex-parte decree was passed in 1997. Execution proceedings began in 1998 to attach and sell the judgment debtors' property—a house and site in Chennai. After multiple unsuccessful auctions due to high upset prices, the court, upon the decree-holder's applications, progressively reduced the ...

The Supreme Court quashed the e-auction sale as the proclamation violated Rule 53 of the Income Tax Act's Second Schedule, applicable via the RDDB Act. It failed to disclose material encumbrances, specifically DDA's claim for unearned increase. The Court held the sale was void, applying principles of restitution to refund the auction purchaser with interest. Facts Of The Case: The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) allotted a plot to Sarita Vihar Club on a leasehold basis. The club mortgaged the plot to Corporation Bank without obtaining the mandatory prior written consent from the Lieutenant Governor, as required by the lease deed. When the club defaulted on its loan, the Bank initiated recovery proceedings. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) ordered the sale of the plot. Despite DDA's obj...

Tag: Sale Proclamation

CPC Order XXI Rule 90(3): Supreme Court Clarifies Time-Bar for Challenging Execution Sales