http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: S. SIVAPRAKASAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: B.V. MUNIRAJ & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: present:               Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy               Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa S. Balakrishnan and S. Prasad, Advs. for the appellant (Tripurari Ray,)  Adv. for Vineet Kumar,  Yatish Mohan, Advs for the Respondents      The following order of the court was delivered:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the  learned single  Judge of the Madras High Court, made on September  23, 1975  in CRP  No. 4307/84.  The facts  are little complicated,  but to  clear the  clogs, they  are  as under:      The Catholic  Syrian Bank  Ltd. was  the mortgagee  and Manickam Mudaliar was the mortgagor in respect of the plaint schedule  property.     To   foreclose  the   mortgage  O.S. No.340/1951 was  filed by  the Bank.  Preliminary decree was passed on  December 20,  1951 and  final decree  came to  be passed on  August 28,  1952.   When objections   were raised against  the   passing  of   final  decree   pending   those proceedings and later execution thereof, one Palaniammal,  a simple money  creditor filed OS No.321/1958 against manickam Mudaliar and  obtained a  money decree.  In execution of the decree, the  self-same property   was  brought  to  sale  in which one  Kandaswamy had  purchased the  property in  court auction on September 4, 1963.  Admittedly,  the same came to be confirmed and possession was taken under the said decree. Kandaswamy transferred  the property    in  favour  of  B.V. Muniraj  and   B.V.  Rangaraj,   respondent  Nos.1   and  2. Subsequently, the  proceedings went  on between  the parties with which  we are  not concerned.   Respondent  Nos.1 and 2 filed the  application under  order XXXIV,  Rule 5  CPC  for passing a  final decree  in terms of sub-rule (1)  of Rule 4 of order  XXXIV.   That order  came to  be passed.    Orders passed on  objections and the orders passed by the executing court under  order XXXIV,  Rule 5 were the subject matter of the revision  and were  dealt with  together.   The  learned single Judge  has upheld  the action  of the  Court below in passing the  final decree  in favour of the subsequent court purchasers B.V. Muniraj and B.V. Rangaraj, Pending revision,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

they, in  turn, sold the property to one S. Palaniswamy, who is the  fifth respondent  herein. Thus,  the question arises whether the  appellant-purchaser  of  the  property  in  the mortgage decree  has a  precedence over  the purchaser    in money decree  in getting  the final  decree  passed  in  the mortgage suit.      Order XXXIV,  Rule 5,  CPC provides      as under      "5. Final  decree in suit for sale-      (1) Where,  on or  before  the  day      fixed or  at any  time  before  the      confirmation  of  a  sale  made  in      pursuance of  a final decree passed      under sub-rule  (3) of  this  rule,      the defendant  makes  payment  into      Court of  all amounts  due from him      under sub-rule  (1) of Rule 4,  the      Court shall  , on  application made      by the  defendant  in  his  behalf,      pass a  final decree  or,  if  such      decree has been passed, an order -      (a)  a ordering  the  plaintiff  to           deliver   up   the   documents           referred to in the preliminary           decree, and , if necessary,-      (b)  ordering him  to transfer  the           mortgaged property as directed           in the  said decree, and also,           if necessary,-      (c)  ordering  him   to   put   the           defendant in possession of the           property.      (2) Where the mortgaged property of      part  thereof   has  been  sold  in      pursuance of  a decree passed under      sub-rule (3)  of this   rule,   the      court shall not pass an order under      Sub-rule (1)   of this rule, unless      the defendant,   in addition to the      amount mentioned  in sub-rule  (1),      deposits in  Court for  payment  to      the purchaser  a sum  equal to five      per  cent  of  the  amount  of  the      purchase-money paid  into court  by      the purchaser.           Where, such  deposit has  been      made,  the   purchaser   shall   be      entitled to  an order for repayment      of the amount of the purchase-money      paid into  court by  him,  together      with a  sum equal  to five per cent      thereof.      (3)  Where  payment  in  accordance      with  sub-rule  (1)  has  not  been      made,     the   court   shall,   on      application made  by the  plaintiff      in  this   behalf,  pass   a  final      property  or   a  sufficient   part      thereof  be   sold,  and  that  the      proceeds of  the sale be dealt with      in the  manner provided in sub-rule      (1) of Rule 4."      Later two  clauses are  not relevant for the purpose of this case.      A reading  of the  above would  clearly  indicate  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

where, on  or before the day fixed or at any time before the confirmation   of a sale made in pursuance of a final decree passed under  sub-rule (3)  of Rule  5 of  order XXXIV,  the defendant makes  payment into  court of all amounts due from him under  sub-rule (1)  of Rule  4,  the  court  shall,  on application made  by the  defendant in  this behalf,  pass a final decree  or, if  such decree  has been passed, an order ordering the  plaintiff to deliver the documents referred to in the preliminary decree, and if necessary, ordering him to transfer the  mortgaged property  as directed  in  the  said decree and  also, if  necessary, ordering  him  to  put  the defendant in  possession of  the property.    The  question, therefore, is  whether respondent Nos.1 and 2, whose release deed by the auction purchaser Kandaswamy was accepted by the executing court,  are entitled to make the application under Order XXXIV, Rule 5, CPC?      It is  seen that since the simple money decree had been duly executed  through the  court and the self-same property had been  brought to sale, was duly confirmed and possession taken in  execution thereof,  the auction  purchasers of the said property in  the money decree stepped into the shoes of the judgment-debtor,  Manickam Mudaliar.  Consequently, they got transposed  themselves to  be defendants in the mortgage decree.   Therefore, before  the confirmation  of the  final decree, they are entitled to make an application under order XXXIV, Rule  5  depositing  all  the  decreetal  amount  and request the  court to  pass a final decree and directing the mortgagee, Catholic  Syrian Bank  Ltd., to  deliver all  the documents to  them duly  endorsing that  the  decree  stands discharged.   Thereby having  had the right thus fructified, the subrugation,   eclipsed  right of  the purchaser  in the mortgage decree.    Thus,  his  right  stands  nullified  by operation of  order XXXIV,  Rule 5, CPC. Thus, the appellant did not  get any  right, though he was a successful auction- purchaser.      Shri  S.   Balakrishnan,  learned   counsel   for   the appellant, seeks  to contend  that under order XXI, Rule 92, CPC as  soon objections  have been  raised and rejected, the court is  required to  confirm the sale and in this case the act of  confirmation being  the ministerial  act,  that does not defeat the right of the auction purchaser nor confer any right on  the subsequent  purchaser  under  a  simple  money decree.   The doctrine  of lis  pendence applies. We find on force in  the contention.   Section  52 of  the Transfer  of property Act has no application to the facts.  The procedure under order  XXXIV is  entirely distinct  and different from the procedure  prescribed under  order XXI.  Order XXI deals with execution  of decrees and orders and objections therein other  than  those  relating  to  the  property  covered  in mortgage  decree.    Order  XXXIV  is  a  special  procedure prescribed relating  to mortgages.  Therefore, the procedure prescribed under  Order XXI,  Rule 92  has no application as regards the  passing of final decree under order XXXIV, Rule 5, CPC.   Thus considered , we hold that the action taken by the executing  court is  not vitiated  by any  error of law, warranting  interference.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.