SALE

65. Purchaser’s title.— Where immovable property is sold in execution of a decree and such sale has become absolute, the property shall be deemed to have vested in the purchaser from the time when the property is sold and not from the time when the sale becomes absolute.

66. Suit against purchaser not maintainable on ground of purchase being on behalf of plaintiff.—[Omitted by the Benami Transactions(Prohibition )Act,1988 (45 of 1988) S.7, w.e.f. May 19,1988]1[***]

1. Omitted by Act No. 45 of 1988.w.e.f.19-5-1988

67. Power for State Government to make rules as to sales of land in execution of decrees for payment of money.—1[(1)] The State Government 4[***] may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for any local area imposing conditions in respect of the sale of any class of interests in land in execution of decrees for the payment of money, where such interests are so uncertain or undetermined as, in the opinion of the State Government, to make it impossible to fix their value.

2[(2) When on the date on which this Code came into operation in any local area, any special rules as to sale of and in execution of decrees were in force therein, the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare such rules to be in force, or may 4[***] by a like notification, modify the same.

Every notification issued in the exercise of the powers conferred by this sub-section shall set out the rules so continued or modified,]

3[(3) Every Rule made under this Section shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before the State Legislature.]

Delegation to Collector of Power to execute decrees against immovable property

1. Section 67 renumbered as sub-section (1) of that Section by Act No. 1 of 1914.

2. Inserted by Act No. 1 of 1914.

3. Inserted by Act No. 20 of 1983, w.e.f. 15th March, 1984.

4. The words “with the previous sanction of the G.G. in C”, omitted by Act No. 38 of 1920.

[68-72. Repealed by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1956]

DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS

73. Proceeds of execution-sale to be rateably distributed among decree-holders.(1) Where assets are held by a Court and more persons than one have, before the receipt of such assets, made application to the Court for the execution of decrees for the payment of money passed against the same judgment-debtor and have not obtained satisfaction thereof, the assets, after deducting the costs of realization, shall be rateably distributed among all such persons:

Provided as follows.—

(a) Where any property is sold subject to a mortgage or charge, the mortgage or incumbrancer not be entitled to share in any surplus arising from such sale;

(b) Where any property liable to be sold in execution of a decree is subject to a mortgage or charge the Court may, with the consent of the mortgagee or incumbrancer, order that the property be sold free from the mortgage or charge, giving to the mortgagee or incumbrancer the same interest in the proceeds of the sale as he had in the property sold;

(c) Where any immovable property is sold in execution of a decree ordering its sale for the discharge of an incumbrance thereon, the proceeds of sale shall be applied.—

First, in defraying the expenses of the sale;

Secondly, in discharging the amount due under the decree;

Thirdly, in discharging the interest and principal monies due on subsequent incumbrances (if any); and

Fourthly, rateably among the holders of decrees for the payment of money against the judgment-debtor, who have, prior to the sale of the property, applied to the Court which passed the decree ordering such sale for execution of such decrees, and have not obtained satisfaction thereof

(2) Where all or any of the assets liable to be rateably distributed under this Section are paid to a person not entitled to receive the same, any person so entitled may sue such person to compel him to refund the assets.

(3) Nothing in this Section affects any right of the Government.

RESISTANCE TO EXECUTION

74. Resistance to execution.— Where the Court is satisfied that the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or that the purchaser of immovable property sold in execution of a decree has been resisted or obstructed in obtaining possession of the property by the judgment-debtor or some person on his behalf and that such resistance or obstruction was without any just cause, the Court may, at the instance of the decree-holder or purchaser, order the judgment-debtor or such other person to be detained in the civil prison for a term which may extend to thirty days and may further direct that the decree-holder or purchaser be put into possession of the property.

PART III

INCIDENTAL PROCEEDINGS

COMMISSIONS

75. Power of Court to issue commissions.— Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may issue a commission.—

(a) To examine any person;

(b) To make a local investigation;

(c) To examine or adjust accounts; or

(d) To make a partition;

1[(e) To hold a scientific, technical, or expert investigation;

(f) To conduct sale of property which is subject to speedy and natural decay and which is in the custody of the Court pending the determination of the suit;

(g) To perform any ministerial Act.]

1. Inserted by Act No. 104 of 1976, w.e.f. 1st February, 1977.

76. Commission to another Court.—(1) A commission for the examination of any person may be issued to any Court (not being a High Court) situate in a State other than the State in which the Court of issue is situate and having jurisdiction in the place in which the person to be examined resides. .

(2) Every Court receiving a commission for the examination of any person under sub-section (1) shall examine him or cause him to be examined pursuant thereto, and the commission, when it has been duly executed, shall be returned together with the evidence taken under it to the Court from which it was issued, unless the order for issuing the commission has otherwise directed, in which case the commission shall be returned in terms of such order.

77. Letter of request.— In lieu of issuing a commission the Court may issue a letter of request to examine a witness residing at any place not within 1[India].

1. Substituted by Act No. 2 of 1951, for the words “the States”.

1[78. Commissions issued by foreign Courts.— Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed the provisions as to the execution and return of commissions for the examination of witnesses shall apply to commissions issued by or as the instance of.—

(a) Courts situate in any part of India to which the provisions of this Code do not extend; or

(b) Courts established or continued by the authority of the Central Government outside India; or

(c) Courts of any State or country outside India.]

1. Substituted by Act No. 2 of 1951 for the former Section.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.