High Court Karnataka High Court

Nellikkottu Kolleriyil Madhavi vs Kavakkalathil Kalikutty And Ors. on 29 November, 1996

Karnataka High Court
Nellikkottu Kolleriyil Madhavi vs Kavakkalathil Kalikutty And Ors. on 29 November, 1996
Equivalent citations: ILR 1997 KAR 2632
Bench: K Ramaswamy, G Nanavati


ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

3. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of the Kerala High Court dated 24,5.1993, made in SA.No. 368 of 1989. The respondents had purchased the Plaint Schedule property in execution of the decrees in OS No. 262 of 1955 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Parappanagadi. The sale certificate, Exh. A-2 dated 28.1.1958 was given to the respondents. They had also filed an application for delivery of possession of the property which had come to be delivered under Exh. A-3 dated 21.7.1961. After taking delivery of the possession on 20.10.1961, they assigned the Plaint Schedule property to the plaintiff. Under those circumstances, the question arises whether they are entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction, restraining the appellant from interfering with his possession. Though the trial Court and the appellate Court had accepted the case of the appellants, the High Court has pointed out that aforesaid documents are material for deciding the controversy and the Courts below had not considered those documents in proper perspective. Accordingly, in second appeal, the High Court has gone into that question. It is settled law that the person who purchases the property in a Court auction-sale, gets title to the property by sale certificate issued by the Court as true owner and after confirmation of the sale, he gets possession thereof. In view of the fact that Plaint Schedule Property was delivered to Sankaran under Exh. A-3 on 21.7.1961, he lawfully came into possession and the same was delivered in turn to the plaintiffs. Non-consideration of the material evidence is a substantial question of law.

4. Under these circumstances, the perpetual injunction granted by the High Court in the second appeal is not vitiated by any error of Law much less substantial question of law warranting interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. If the appellant has got any titled independent of this, it is open to him to have the right established in accordance with law.