http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: NELLIKKOTTU KOLLERIYIL MADHAVI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KAVAKKALATHIL KALIKUTTY & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       29/11/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment and decree of the Kerala High Court dated May 24, 1993, made in SA  No. 368  of 1989.  The respondents  had purchased the Plaint Schedule  property in  execution of the decrees in OS No. 262/1955  on the  file of  the  Court  of  the  District Munsiff, Parappanangadi.  The  sale  certificate,  Exh.  A-2 dated January  28, 1958  was given  to the respondents. They had also filed and application for delivery of possession of the property  which had  come to  be delivered under Ex. A-3 dated 21.7.1963.  After taking delivery of the possession on October 20, 1961, they assigned the Plaint Schedule property to the  plaintiff. Under  those circumstances,  the question arises; whether  they are  entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction restraining  the appellant  from interfering with his possession?  Though the  trial Court  and the  appellate Court had accepted the case of the appellant, the High Court has pointed  out that  aforesaid documents  are material for deciding the  controversy  and  the  courts  below  had  not considered   those    documents   in   proper   perspective. Accordingly, in  second appeal, the High Court has gone into that question.  It  is  settled  law  that  the  person  who purchases the  property in  a court auction sale, gets title to the  property by  sale certificate issued by the court as true owner  and after  confirmation of  the  sale,  he  gets possession thereof. In view of the fact that Plaint Schedule property was delivered to Sankaran under Ex. A-3 on July 21, 1961, he  lawfully came  into possession  and the  same  was delivered in  turn to  the plaintiffs.  Non-consideration of the material evidence is a substantial question of law.      Under these  circumstances,  the  perpetual  injunction granted by  the High  Court in  the  second  appeal  is  not vitiated by  any error of law much less substantial question of law  warranting interference.  The appeal  is accordingly dismissed. If the appellant has got any title independent of this, it  is open  to him  to have  the right established in accordance with law.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2