SMT. DEVTIDEVI DAULAT RAM versus MOTI AND ANR.

SMT. DEVTIDEVI DAULAT RAM versus MOTI AND ANR.

The first respondent failed to deposit the balance 3/4th auction amount within two months of sale, as statutorily required; the excuse of having applied to the authority was not substantiated. The requirements of Sections 202 and 203 are mandatory. Thus, the order setting aside the auction sale was valid.

Parties
Appellant: SMT. DEVTIDEVI DAULAT RAM; Respondent: Moti; Respondent: Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 August 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court on Appeal From Bombay High Court Judgment in Writ Petition
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Auction Sale, Deposit of Bid Amount, Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, Procedural Compliance
Revenue Law Auction Sale Deposit of Bid Amount Maharashtra Land Revenue Code Procedural Compliance

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SMT. DEVTIDEVI DAULAT RAM

Appellant

Moti

Respondent

Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court on Appeal From Bombay High Court Judgment in Writ Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to deposit balance auction amount within statutory period under Section 202 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, renders the auction sale invalid

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent failed to deposit the balance 3/4th auction amount within two months of sale, as statutorily required; the excuse of having applied to the authority was not substantiated. The requirements of Sections 202 and 203 are mandatory. Thus, the order setting aside the auction sale was valid.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Auction sale set aside.
  • Deposits made by appellant pursuant to Supreme Court orders, with interest accrued thereon, to be paid to the first respondent.