TARINIKAMAL PANDIT AND ORS. versus PERFULLA KUMAR CHATTERJEE (DEAD) BY L.RS.

TARINIKAMAL PANDIT AND ORS. versus PERFULLA KUMAR CHATTERJEE (DEAD) BY L.RS.

Section 66 of CPC is not applicable to sales conducted by a Receiver under Order 40 Rule 1, as such sales do not result in a purchase certified by the court under Order 21 Rule 94. Plaintiffs’ suit is maintainable seeking partition and possession as co-owners based on facts beyond the unregistered agreement, and the compromise among the parties is ordered as decree.

Parties
Appellant: TARINIKAMAL PANDIT; Respondent: PERFULLA KUMAR CHATTERJEE (DEAD) BY L.RS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 February 1979
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Certificate From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Auction Sale by Receiver, Partition, Section 66 CPC, Order 21 Rule 94 CPC, Co Ownership, Unregistered Agreements
Civil Procedure Property Law Auction Sale by Receiver Partition Section 66 CPC Order 21 Rule 94 CPC Co Ownership Unregistered Agreements

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TARINIKAMAL PANDIT

Appellant

PERFULLA KUMAR CHATTERJEE (DEAD) BY L.RS.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Certificate From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 66 of the Civil Procedure Code applies to sales by a Receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC
  2. 2 Whether a claim based on unregistered agreement is maintainable against a purchaser at court sale
  3. 3 Whether the appellants are entitled to partition and possession of the suit property as co-owners

Ratio Decidendi

Section 66 of CPC is not applicable to sales conducted by a Receiver under Order 40 Rule 1, as such sales do not result in a purchase certified by the court under Order 21 Rule 94. Plaintiffs’ suit is maintainable seeking partition and possession as co-owners based on facts beyond the unregistered agreement, and the compromise among the parties is ordered as decree.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decree for partition and separate possession of one-fourth share each for plaintiffs 2 and 3.
  • Decree to be passed in terms of compromise entered among parties.