State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 – Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – The respondent was the Managing Director of a company that had borrowed money from respondent no.2 KFSC – Due to defaults in repayment, KSFC initiated recovery proceedings and was granted a decree against the Company – Subsequently, KSFC filed Execution Petition – As part of this process, agricultural land measuring 5.5 acres in Sy. No.67 of Agara Village, belonging to the respondent, was put to auction – The sale was finalised – However, VVMP, a Trust, filed an application for the issuance of a sale certificate in the execution petition and application was sworn by the appellant – Sale certificate was issued in the appellant’s favour as a Trustee of VVMP – It led to various rounds of litigation with main contention that the appellant had participated in the auction as a Trustee rather than an individual agriculturist – In the impugned judgment, the High Court has upheld the auction sale of Sy. No.67 but directed the appellant to pay an additional Rs.25,00,000/- per acre to respondent – The District Court was also directed to once again survey the Sy. No.67, rectifying its boundaries, if necessary, while maintaining status quo until then – Correctness:
Held: 1. The High Court has carefully considered the long-drawn litigation, involving several rounds inter se the parties, as well as the various contentions raised and the conduct of the parties throughout – The Single Judge has rendered a just and equitable judgment by taking into account both the mitigating and aggravating aspects of their conduct – This Court finds that the Single Judge has dealt with each and every argument methodically and in the true spirit of law and justice. [Para 7]
2. The fact remains that the appellant, auction purchaser had purchased Sy.No.67 comprising of three parts with total area of
5 acres and 20 guntas (5-1/2 acres) – Once the area had been specified of the three parts being (a) 1 acre 24 guntas (b) 36 guntas and (c) 3 acres, totalling 5 acres and 20 guntas (5-1/2 acres), the appellant would not be entitled to hold possession of any more area than what was purchased in the auction and as mentioned in the sale certificate – Further, the issue relating to the identification and measurement is concerned, there is no justification to interfere with the direction of the High Court to get the survey carried out for specific measurements of the purchased property – Insofar as the direction for payment of Rs.25 lakhs per acre as additional sale consideration to the respondent is concerned, this Court does not wish to interfere with the same, considering the conduct of the appellant, whose dual role casts doubt on the entire proceedings [Paras 9-11]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.