DEV RAJ DOGRA AND ORS. versus GYAN CHAND JAIN AND ORS.

DEV RAJ DOGRA AND ORS. versus GYAN CHAND JAIN AND ORS.

An auction purchaser who is not a party to the original mortgage suit and acquires title after a court-confirmed sale is not entitled to actual physical possession under Order XXI Rule 95 CPC against tenants inducted after a compromise decree; such purchaser is only entitled to symbolic possession as per Rule 96.

Parties
Appellants: Dev Raj Dogra and Others; Respondents: Gyan Chand Jain and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 March 1981
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated 23.5.1979 of the Delhi High Court in E.f.a. No. 8/76
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside.
Legal Topics
Auction Purchaser's Rights, Possession Under Decree, Lis Pendens, Tenancy Rights After Mortgage Decree
Civil Procedure Property Law Auction Purchaser's Rights Possession Under Decree Lis Pendens Tenancy Rights After Mortgage Decree

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dev Raj Dogra and Others

Appellants

Gyan Chand Jain and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated 23.5.1979 of the Delhi High Court in E.f.a. No. 8/76

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an auction purchaser under Order XXI Rules 95 and 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is entitled to actual physical possession or only symbolic possession of property occupied by tenants whose tenancies were created after a compromise mortgage decree.

Ratio Decidendi

An auction purchaser who is not a party to the original mortgage suit and acquires title after a court-confirmed sale is not entitled to actual physical possession under Order XXI Rule 95 CPC against tenants inducted after a compromise decree; such purchaser is only entitled to symbolic possession as per Rule 96.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside.

Orders

  • Judgment and order of the High Court directing physical possession to be made over to the auction purchaser is set aside.
  • Symbolic possession of the portions in occupation of the appellants to be made over to the auction purchaser respondent.