It may be numbered that initially this suit was filed against Gopal Rao Mutatkar for Mahila Vidyalaya, Sagar as defendant No.
4 i.e. Govind Rao Harshe, the judgment debtor.
Radha Bai alone.
Radha Bai who was the widowed sister of Govind Rao Harshe, handed over the possession to Mahila Vidyalaya.
A suit was brought in the year 1948 by the four sons of the judgment debtor Govind Rao Harshe.
This suit filed in 1948 was for a declaration that the execution sale was number binding on their interests.
In the meantime on 15th January, 1944 an application was submitted by Mahila Vidyalaya, Sagar appellant before us through its Secretary, Shri G.R. Wakhle for granting the sale certificate to the applicant Mahila Vidyalaya.
27 of 1941, I hold that a companydition can be prescribed by the D. R. Court in default of which the order fixing instalments shall cease to have effect and the whole claim shall become recoverable.
The High Court in the impugned order companysidered that as Gopal Rao Mutatkar was the auction purchaser, numbersale certificate companyld be issued by the executing companyrt in favour of the appellant Mahila Vidyalaya.
The said permission was granted on 10th March, 1953 and all the tenants except Mst.
In the application filed by Mahila Vidyalaya it was clearly stated that the house in question was auctioned by the Court and was purchased by Gopal Rao Mutatkar on 20th August, 1942 for Mahila Vidyalaya.
The sale certificate was then actually issued in favour of Mahila Vidyalaya on 8th April, 1944.
The High Court by order dated 12th December, 1974 dismissed the appeal.
An appeal filed against this order was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sagar by order dated 24th April 1944.
It may be further numbered that application for delivery of possession to auction purchaser was filed by Mahila Vidyalaya on 22nd September, 1948 and the symbolic possession was also delivered on 24th March, 1951.
The creditors filed revision applications against the aforesaid order of Debt Relief Court.
The High Court in arriving at the aforesaid companyclusion also took the view that there was numberhing on record to show that till the sale was companyfirmed it was ever made known that Gopal Rao Mutatkar was purchasing the property for and on behalf of the Mahila Vidyalaya.
The revision filed by Lakshmi Chand and Duli Chand was registered as Civil Revision No.
The Mahila Vidyalaya thereafter instituted Civil Suit No.
The judgment debtor Govind Rao Harshe submitted an application on 12th August, 1942 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 31st March, 1942.
The entire sale money was deposited and the sale was companyfirmed under Order XXI Rule 92 C.P.C. by order dated 10th April, 1943.
2 and 3 and Govind Rao Harshe father of the plaintiffs as defendant No.
1 b G.R. Wakhle as Secretary of the said Mahila Vidyalaya had made an application for issue of sale certificate and for possession of the house.
Gopal Rao Mutatkar took part in the auction bid and it was knocked down in his favour on 20th August, 1942.
Sadashiv Rao and Ram Chander Rao, sons of judgment debtor Govind Rao Harshe who had become adult also moved the executing Court on 28th September, 1943 that they were also necessary parties to the execution case as they were also parties in the proceedings before the Debt Relief Court and as they were number made parties in the execution companyrt, the order passed by the executing companyrt dated 31st March, 1942 was void and without jurisdiction.
Against this decision, Govind Rao Harshe alone preferred an appeal in the High Court and Mst.
It is important to numbere that numberfinger was raised number any steps were taken by the judgment debtor or his sons objecting the issue of sale certificate in favour of Mahila Vidyalaya.
The necessary stamps for the sale certificate were supplied by the Mahila Vidyalaya and the sale certificate was actually issued in the name of the Mahila Vidyalaya on 8th April, 1944.
In our view the High Court companypletely misdirected itself and wrongly ignored the earlier decisions between the parties and we are, therefore, inclined to allow this appeal.
The steps taken by his adult sons Sadashiv Rao and Ram Chander Rao for impleading them as parties also proved futile.
It is an admitted position that an application was submitted by the Mahila Vidyalaya through its Secretary as early as 5th January, 1944 for issue of a sale certificate in its name as the house was purchased in the auction for the Vidyalaya by Gopal Rao Mutatkar as a member of the institution.
The execution of the aforesaid decree was stayed and in the meantime C.P. and Berar Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1939 came into force.
1 b , Lakshmi Chand and Duli Chand as defendant Nos.
4 was also required to pay Rs.
This application was rejected vide order dated 6th February, 1943.
The executing companyrt on 26th February, 1944 passed an order to the following effect The sale certificate will issue in the name of Mahila Vidyalaya, Sagar through Secretary, G.R. Wakhle.
In this litigation Govind Rao Harshe was held to be a licensee of his sister Mst.
Radha Bai alone.
A numbere was also appended with the application as under That when Gopal Rao son of Madho Rao offered bid in public auction he was a member of the above mentioned institution.
He was dispossessed by a person who had numbertitle.
On 31st March, 1942 the executing companyrt passed a order holding that the number applicant judgment debtor had companymitted breach of the companydition and as such the decree holders were entitled to recover the amount determined by the Debt Relief Court as due to them at once.
The above narration of events which remain undisputed go to show that the house in question was sold in the execution of a final decree for sale and the bid was knocked down in the name of Gopal Rao Mutatkar as back as 20th August, 1942.
Govind Rao Harshe was a party to the execution proceedings and till the filing of the present suit on 26th November, 1960, numberobjection was raised as regards the sale certificate being wrongly issued in favour of Mahila Vidyalaya.
The Mahila Vadyalaya then filed an execution application for ejectment of the occupants and the same is still pending as a result of stay order passed in a subsequent suit filed by Govind Rao Harshe, which is number the subject matter of the present appeal before us.
It was further held that the decree holders were entitled to execute the decree for recovery of debt amount.
100 A of 1954 against Mst.
Civil Appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed on 6th April, 1943 by the Additional District Judge.
1/4th of the auction amount Rs.
In either case, whether Article 142 or 143 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is applied, the suit is within time.
This stand taken by Mahila Vidyalaya was accepted and the executing companyrt passed a specific order on 26th February, 1944 for issue of a sale certificate in the name of Mahila Vidyalaya.
This application was rejected on 13th December, 1943.
5905 was knocked down in favour of one Gopal Rao Mutatkar on 20th August, 1942.
At the time of delivery of possession some portion of the house was in the occupation of Smt.
the decree holders as such prayed for the sale of the house property in dispute.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.1974 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No.
133 of 1960 filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Sagar on 26th November, 1960 by Govind Rao Harshe, which has culminated in the present appeal.
5905 and the auction sale was companyfirmed by the Court on 10th April , 1943.
Steps for executing the decree and for obtaining actual possession was also taken by the Mahila Vidyalaya.
4405 was deposited on 4th September, 1942.
1 A of 1948 for a declaration that the execution sale was number binding on their interest.
Radha Bai was impleaded as respondent No.
It may be numbered at this stage that in the meantime the sale was companyfirmed vide order dated 10th April, 1943.
The High Court affirmed the finding of the First Appellate Court that Gopal Rao Mutatkar did number purchase the property in the auction acting on behalf of the appellant and the First Appellate Court rightly held that Gopal Rao Mutatkar was the auction purchaser ad the sale was companyfirmed in his name and the deposited full sale amount in his own name.
In that suit Gopal Rao Mutatkar and G.R. Wakhle filed their written statements and raised an objection that they were unnecessarily made parties as they had ceased to have any companynection with the Mahila Vidyalaya.
The order dated 10th April, 1943 relating to companyfirmation of sale was also made in the name of Gopal Rao Mutatkar.
Radha Bai.
In default of their paying land revenue of the Malik Makbuza land in time, endangering its sale for its recovery, and in case they deliberately fail to keep the mortgaged house in proper repairs or endanger its existence, this order of instalments shall cease to have effect and the applicant creditor shall become entitled to recover the whole amount.
This litigation has a long chequered history of more than five decades.
Not only that in a suit for declaration filed in 1948 by the four sons of Govind Rao Harshe, Gopal Rao Mutatkar in his written statement filed on 10th March, 1948 had taken a clear stand that the house in question was actually purchased by Mahila Vidyalaya and as such he was wrongly impleaded as defendant in the suit.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit for ejectment but passed a decree for arrears or rent against Mst.
The appellant, the Sagar Mahila Vidyalaya is an educational institution founded by a section of the public of District Sagar M.P. by giving donations and is duly registered under the Societies Registration Act Act XXI of 1860 .
The Miscellaneous second appeal filed against the appeal order was also dismissed by the High Court by order dated 15th December, 1947.
300 to defendants 1, 2 and 3 as companypensatory companyts.
In this regard an application was filed on behalf of Mahila Vidyalaya on 5th January, 1944 and the executing companyrt had passed an order on 26th February, 1944 that the sale certificate will issue in the name of Mahila Vidyalaya.
On November, 1941 the decree holders Lakshmi Chand and Duli Chand Modi applied for the revival of the execution proceedings on the ground that the judgment debtor had defaulted in carrying out the directions of the revisional companyrt and as such the order passed by the Debt Relief Court granting instalments had ceased to exist and the whole amount had become payable in lumpsum.
90 were supplied with the application.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and have thoroughly perused the records.
The plaintiff Govind Rao Harshe was never ousted by Gopal Rao Mutatkar who was the auction purchaser.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs impleaded Mahila Vidyalaya, Sagar as party.
As Mahila Vidyalaya was in need of more building, it moved the Rent Controller for permission to serve numberices on the tenants.
On an appeal the District Judge, Sagar allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the present respondents granting the declaration, delivery of possession of the house together with a mandatory injunction directing demolition of some new companystructions made by the Mahila Vidyalaya.
P 22 is the companyy of the written statement dated 10th March, 1948 filed by Gopal Rao Mutatkar in which he admitted that the house under dispute was auctioned on 20th August, 1942 and the same was purchased by the Sagar Mahila Vidyalaya, Sagar through him and that defendant No.
27 of 1941.
Parties will bear their own companyts of this revision.
Against this decision, Govind Rao Harshe alone preferred a second appeal in the High Court and the same was dismissed by order dated 29th April, 1960.
The Sagar Mahila Vidyalaya, Sagar in the capacity of auction purchaser then applied for the delivery of possession.
The Additional District Judge disposed of both the revisions by order dated 29th September, 1941.
The sale certificate was thereafter, actually issued in the name of Mahila Vidyalaya on 8th April, 1944.
The Sagar Mahila Vidyalaya, Sagar was a registered institution and the suit should have been filed against the institution itself and number in the name of its office bearers.
On such stand taken by Gopal Rao Mutatkar, the plaintiffs had subsequently impleaded Mahila Vidyalaya as the defendant.
No further appeal was preferred against this judgment and decree.
the execution of the final decree for sale had been stayed by the executing Court as per the provisions of the Relief of Indebtedness Act.
The sale was companyfirmed by an order of the executing companyrt dated 10th April, 1943.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit for ejectment but passed a decree for arrears of rent against Mst.
It was thus prayed that the defendants 1 a and 1 b had been unnecessarily joined as parties to the suit and should be discharged.
1 a , Shri G.R. Wakhle, Secretary, Mahila Vidyalaya as defendant No.
The two adult sons were those who had already remained unsuccessful in challenging the order of the Court dated 31st March, 1942 and two sons Sarat Chand and Ashok Kumar were those who were born in the meantime.
The deposit of auction money was also made in his own name and the order dated 10th April, 1943 companyfirming the sale was also made in his name.
The High Court thus took the view that the suit for possession on the basis of title was governed by Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
Radha bai, widowed sister of the judgment debtor, Govind Rao Harshe and other portions were in the occupation of the tenants.
The appeal filed by the Mahila Vidyalaya was allowed by the Additional District Judge by judgment dated 27th October, 1957.
Shri G.R. Wakhle was the Secretary of the Sagar Mahila Vidyalaya, Sagar in 1942 and 1943.
Stamps of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
I, therefore, order that the debtors shall keep the mortgaged property intact by paying its land revenue in time every year and shall keep the house in good repairs, as a companydition precedent to the companytinuance of their right to pay the claim by instalments fixed by the D.R. Court.
203 of 1975.
It was stated in the application that the house in question was auctioned by the Court and was purchased by Gopal Rao Mutatkar on 20th August, 1942 for Mahila Vidyalaya, Sagar for Rs.
On 29th March 1938 the decree holders applied for execution of the said decree.
Miscellaneous Appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the Second Additional District Judge, Sagar vide order dated 19th December, 1943.
The High Court held that as Gopal Rao Mutatkar was the auction purchaser, numbersale certificate companyld be issued by the executing companyrt in favour of the appellant Mahila Vidyalaya.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 12th December, 1974.
The Judgment debtor Govind Rao Submitted an application under Order XXI Rule 90 C.P.C. for setting aside the sale dated 20th August, 1942.
Govind Rao the judgment debtor submitted an application for setting aside the sale under Order XXI Rule 90 C.P.C. but remained unsuccessful.
the judgment debtor Govind Rao Harshe did number appear before the executing companyrt inspite of service of numberice and allowed the execution case to proceed ex parte against him.
The admitted facts of the case are that the house in question was auctioned in the execution of a decree for sale obtained by the mortgagees Lakshmi Chand and Duli Chand Modi.
P. Rao, Dr. N.M. Ghatate, S.V. Deshpande, Ms. Priya Gupta and Ejaz Maqbool for the Respondents.
The aforesaid mortgages filed a suit and obtained a preliminary decree for sale on 14th July, 1937.
It is worthwhile to numbere that this suit was initially filed against Gopal Rao Mutatkar and G.R. Wakhle but subsequently the plaintiffs impleaded the Mahila Vidyalaya in view of an objection raised by Gopal Rao Mutatkar and G.R. Wakhle that the house in question was actually purchased by Mahila Vidyalaya and the sale certificate was also issued in the name of Mahila Vidyalaya.
119 of 1940 while that of another creditor Pandey Shankernath was registered as Civil Revision No.
5001/13/6 was passed on 26th March, 1938.
On 17th November, 1933 one Govind Rao Harshe had mortgaged some agricultural land and house known as Harshewada to Lakshmi Chand and Duli Chand Modi.
In this suit also numberobjection was raised on behalf of the plaintiffs, who were sons of Govind Rao Harshe, that numbersale certificate companyld have been issued in the name of Mahila Vidyalaya number any title companyld have passed to Mahila Vidyalaya and as such there was numberquestion of impleading Mahila Vidyalaya as defendant and the suit for declaration should companytinue against Gopal Rao Mutatkar.
It was held that the bid in the auction was made by Gopal Rao for himself and number on behalf of Mahila Vidyalaya.
The judgment debtor Govind Harshe alongwith his minor sons namely, Sadashiv Rao and Ram Chander Rao applied for settlement of the debts on 14th September, 1939 in the Debt Relief Court, Sagar.
This suit filed by the aforementioned four sons of the judgment debtor was also dismissed on 27th December, 1949 and companyts were imposed number only on the plaintiffs but also on defendant No.
R. Lalit, Rameshawar Nath, L.G. Kher and Ravinder Nath for the appellant.
119 of 1940 and its operative part reads as under For the reasons given in paragraph 8 of the order of C.R. No.
Therefore, the following applicant who is the Secretary of this institution makes this application.
A final decree for sale for the realisation of Rs.
On 11th September, 1940, the Debt Relief Court reduced the amount and granted instalments.
Aggrieved against the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the defendant Mahila Vidyalaya filed a second appeal before the High Court.
Radha Bai and Govind Harshe for ejectment and rent.
He was numberlonger its secretary and the present Secretary of the said institution was Mr. Kamlakar Nagarkar.
P 4 is the companyy of the order passed in Civil Revision No.
The appeal filed by the Mahila Vidyalaya was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Sagar on 27th October, 1957 and the prayer for ejectment was also allowed.
The defendant Mahila Vidyalaya in the above circumstances have companye in appeal by the grant of special leave.
569 of 1970.
The Secretary of the Mahila Vidyalaya Agreed to the request of the tenants including Smt.
The High Court further held that suit filed on 26th November, 1960 being within 12 years from 24th March, 1951 was within time.
It was prayed that the sale certificate be granted to the applicant purchaser Mahila Vidyalaya .
The possession was delivered to Mahila Vidyalaya on 24th March, 1951.
The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court on 13th December, 1968.
This application was dismissed on 13th November, 1942.
The High Court by its judgment dated 29th April, 1960 dismissed the second appeal filed by Govind Rao Harshe.
1500 was deposited on the spot and the balance 3/4th amounting to Rs.
In the meantime, the house mortgaged was put to auction and the highest bid of Rs.
The defendant No.
It is numberdoubt companyrect that the final bid in the sale was knocked down in the name of Gopal Rao Mutatkar and the sale was also companyfirmed in his name but the sale certificate was admittedly issued in the name of the Mahila Vidyalaya.
