BALRAM S/O BHASA RAM versus ILAM SINGH AND ORS.

BALRAM S/O BHASA RAM versus ILAM SINGH AND ORS.

Order XXI Rule 85 requires strict compliance; non-payment of the whole purchase-money by the auction purchaser within fifteen days renders the sale void, and executing court has no power to extend that period due to its own or decree-holder’s mistake. Set-off under Rule 72 aids decree-holder only to the extent of adjustment, not relief from depositing total sale price.

Parties
Appellant: Balram S/o Bhasa Ram; Respondent: Ilam Singh; Respondents: Respondents (other than Ilam Singh)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 August 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Allahabad High Court Judgment and Order Dated 19.4.90
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Execution of Decree, Auction Sale, Non Compliance With Deposit Requirements, Sale of Agricultural Land
Civil Procedure Execution of Decree Auction Sale Non Compliance With Deposit Requirements Sale of Agricultural Land

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Balram S/o Bhasa Ram

Appellant

Ilam Singh

Respondent

Respondents (other than Ilam Singh)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Allahabad High Court Judgment and Order Dated 19.4.90

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-compliance of Order XXI Rule 85 nullifies the auction sale
  2. 2 Whether mistake in specifying the decretal amount affects purchaser’s obligation under Rule 85
  3. 3 Whether executing court has inherent power to correct its mistake regarding sale proclamation

Ratio Decidendi

Order XXI Rule 85 requires strict compliance; non-payment of the whole purchase-money by the auction purchaser within fifteen days renders the sale void, and executing court has no power to extend that period due to its own or decree-holder’s mistake. Set-off under Rule 72 aids decree-holder only to the extent of adjustment, not relief from depositing total sale price.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Decretal amount deposited by judgment-debtor to be paid to appellant decree-holder.
  • One-half of total amount deposited by appellant under interim order to be paid to judgment-debtor; remaining one-half refunded to appellant.