Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1996 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1996 (12) TMI 351 - SC - Indian LawsInterest of the decree-holder - Held that:- Here the sale was conducted on 27.2.1984. The bidder who made his initial deposit of ₹ 25,000 did not pay the balance within the period of 15 days i.e. 13.3.1984. Instead the payment was made only on 9.11.1990 which was 6 years 6 months and 12 days after the sale. The excess advanced by the first respondent was that the amount could not be paid on account of pendency of the civil suit filed by the appellant. On the other hand appellant contends that first respondent did not make the payment as he too was pretty sure that the sale of 27.2.1984 stood cancelled by the operation of the conditions imposed by the courts, whatever is the excess the fact remains that first respondent did not pay the balance sale amount within 15 days of sale. The sale of 27.2.1984 would, therefore, stand annulled ipso jure without anything more. Thus as sale was not validly made at all as the failure on the part of the purchaser in depositing the balance sale price within the time limits has rendered the sale a non-est.The conclusion is that first respondent did not legally acquire the interest of the decree-holder in the property. He is, therefore, not a transferee by operation of law as envisaged under Order 21 Rule 16 of the Code. His application for substitution is hence liable to be dismissed.
|