SADHURAM BANSAL versus PULIN BEHARI SARKAR & ORS.

SADHURAM BANSAL versus PULIN BEHARI SARKAR & ORS.

Courts may favour substantial justice by recognising the realities of possession and social justice, even if entry was illegal, provided no accrued legal rights are deprived and no concluded contract has been breached. The Division Bench was justified in directing sale to the respondents who were in possession, on payment of a higher price, and the Supreme Court will not interfere under Article 136 when such a view was possible on the facts.

Parties
Appellant: Sadhuram Bansal; Respondents: Pulin Behari Sarkar & Ors.; Respondent: Respondent No. 5
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 April 1984
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Calcutta High Court Judgment Dated 25.7.1983
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Receivership, Sale of Court Property, Possession, Social Justice, Code of Civil Procedure Order XL, Code of Criminal Procedure Section 145
Civil Procedure Property Law Social Justice Receivership Sale of Court Property Possession Code of Civil Procedure Order XL Code of Criminal Procedure Section 145

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sadhuram Bansal

Appellant

Pulin Behari Sarkar & Ors.

Respondents

Respondent No. 5

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Calcutta High Court Judgment Dated 25.7.1983

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the concept of social justice empowers the court to grant relief to persons in possession even if their entry was illegitimate, against the bona fide purchaser at a court sale.
  2. 2 Effect of proceedings under Section 145 of CrPC on parties' title and possession.
  3. 3 Whether technicalities of law should prevent substantial justice for parties in possession.

Ratio Decidendi

Courts may favour substantial justice by recognising the realities of possession and social justice, even if entry was illegal, provided no accrued legal rights are deprived and no concluded contract has been breached. The Division Bench was justified in directing sale to the respondents who were in possession, on payment of a higher price, and the Supreme Court will not interfere under Article 136 when such a view was possible on the facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of Calcutta High Court Division Bench upheld; property ordered to be sold to respondents 1 to 4 on payment as directed by the High Court (Rs. 1.25 lakhs immediately and Rs. 3.75 lakhs thereafter).