Holding

The mortgagor's right of redemption is extinguished by a final court‑auction sale, and specific performance cannot be granted; the High Court’s order is set aside.

Summary

Embassy Hotels Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit for specific performance of a 1978 agreement for sale of land that had been mortgaged by the vendor, M/s. Gajaraj & Co., to Srinivasa Perumal Financing Corporation. The mortgaged land was sold by court auction to the appellant, who obtained a sale certificate that was confirmed by the courts. The trial court dismissed the specific performance suit, holding that the vendor's right of redemption was extinguished by the final auction sale; the Madras High Court reversed this decision and ordered specific performance. The Supreme Court held that under the proviso to Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, the right of redemption is lost once the court‑ordered sale becomes final, and that a judgment confirming such a sale cannot be ignored in a collateral proceeding. Consequently, the High Court’s decree was set aside and the trial court’s dismissal restored, with the appeal allowed.

Issues considered

The mortgagor's right of redemption under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act survives a court‑ordered auction sale that has become final.
Whether a judgment confirming a court‑sale can be challenged in a collateral suit alleging fraud or collusion.
Whether specific performance of a sale agreement can be granted when the subject property has already been transferred to a third‑party purchaser.
The applicability of Order 21 Rule 89 versus Order 34 Rule 5 of the CPC in seeking relief against the confirmed sale.
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the trial court’s finding on the finality of the auction sale.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 21 Rule 89, s. Order 34 Rule 5
Specific Relief Act, 1963s. 20
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 60

Subjects

specific performancemortgageright of redemptioncourt auctionTransfer of Property Actres judicatacollateral proceedingCode of Civil ProcedureOrder 21 Rule 89Order 34 Rule 5

Judgment

[2014] 14 S.C.R. 603

EMBASSY HOTELS PVT.LTD. A
v.
MIS. GAJARAJ & CO. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5884 of 2004)
NOVEMBER 12, 2014 B
[M. Y. EQBALAND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]
Specific Performance - Suit for specific performance
of an agreement for sale - The suit land earlier morlgaged
by the owner of the land with the financing Corporation against C
a loan - On non-payment of the loan by the owner, the iand
sold in courl auction in the suit filed by the Corporation -
Auction sale confirmed upto Supreme Courl - Suit for
specific performance dismissed by trial courl, but allowed by
High Courl- Held: In view of proviso to s. 60 of Transfer of
0
Property Act, the right to redeem the mortgage got
extinguished by the auction sale - The auction sale having
attained finality by courl orders, cannot be ignored by another
courl in a collateral proceeding - Thus the High Courl was
not right in decreeing the suit for specific performance - E
Transfer of Property Act, 1882- s. 60 proviso - Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908- Or. 21 r. 89.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It cannot be said that the first defendant
being a mortgagor will continue to have a right of F
redemption although the sale of mortgaged property to
a third party through a court auction became final.
Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act protects the
right ofredemption available to a mortgagor by providing
that the mortgagor can exercise such a right by paying G
.the mortgaged money at any time after the principal
money has become due. But the proviso clarifies that
the right conferred by that Section is.available only if it
has not been extinguished by act of the parties or by
H
. 603
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.

A decree of the court. The act of the parties would cover
act of the mortg~gor and the mortgagee, if they are
unable to settle the dispute arising out of money claim
covered by the mortgage and by their action, allow the ·
mortgaged property to be sold through auction in favour
B of a third party. Hence, it is not possible to accept the
case of the plaintiff-respondent that in spite of sale of.
the suit property becoming final through court auction,
for the purpose of grant of specific relief to the plaintiff
in the present suit, the first defendant would be deemed
c to still retain the right to redeem the mortgage and
transfer the suit property to the plaintiff regardless of the
right, title and possession already legally vested in the
auction purchaser~the appellant. [Para 18 and 19]
[613-C; 613-C-G]
D 2. No doubt, if a fraud is alleged and proved, it can
be sufficient to get rid of most solemn of proceedings
including court proceedings. But in case of order of a
court of competent jurisdiction, this must be done only
by throwing a direct challenge to the proceedings by
E instituting a suit for that purpose or through any
appropriate legal 'proceecHi{ which may permit such
direct challenge. Judgments of courts cannot be ignored
by another court in a collateral proceeding and that also ·
· on mere suspicion of fraud or collusion, as has been
F done in this case. [Para 20][613-G-H; 614-A-B]
Union of India v. Major S.P Sharma 2014 (6) SCC
351 - relied on.
3. The orders passed in the execution proceedings
relating to the mortgage suit were by a competent court
G which rejected the plaintiff's daims. Such orders cannot
· be ignored in a collateral proceeding. It is to be kept in
mind that the order confirming the sale and rejecting the
plaintiff's application under ·order 21 Rule 89 for one
reason or the other was conftrmed'by this. Court also.
H
EMBASSY HOTELS PVT.LTD. v. M/S. GAJARAJ & CO. 605

The High Court while allowing the suit for specific A
performance ignored the aforesaid cardinal principle o.f
law. [Para 22][614-D-F] .
4. No doubt Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act
vests the Court with a jud.icial discretion in granting or
not granting specific performance. But in the present B
case the plaintiff cannot gain anything from this Section
because the suit property or substantial part of the same
had already been auctioned and first defendant had no
longer any title or ownership over the same and hence it
was not possible to grant a decree for a specific C
performance. [Para 27][616-C-F]
Dadi Jagannadham v. Jammulu Ramulu and Ors.
2001 (7) sec 11 : 2001 (2) suppl. SCR 60; . ·
Chandra Mani Saha v. Anrjan Bibi AIR 1934 PC
134; VS. Subraman_ia Asari v. Ramaswami Pillai D
AIR 1937 Mad 560 ; Gour Chand Mullick v.
Pradyumna Kumar Mullick AIR 1945 Cal. 6; Rama
Krishna Rao v. Chellayyamma AIR 1953 SC 425:
1950 SCR 806 ; Ramgonda Patil v. SJmpal
Ba/want Rainade 1988 (3) SCC 298 : 1988 (3) E
SCR 689 ; Magan/al v. Jaiswal Industries 1989
(4) SCC 344 : 1989 (3) SCR 696 ; Mathura
Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B.
Jeejeebhoy 1970 (1) sec 613 : 1970 (3)
SCR 830 ; Pandurang Dhoni Chougule v. Maruti F
Haii Jadhav 1966 (1) SCR 102- referred to.
CASE LAW REFERENCE
2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 60 referred to. Para 9
2014(6) sec 351 relied on. Para 21 G
AIR 1934 PC 134 referred to. . Para 23
AIR 1937 Mad 560 referred to. Para 23
AIR 1945 Cal. 6 referred to. Para 23
H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A 1950 SCR 806 referred to. Para 23 r~,.
1988 (3) SCR 689 referred to. Para 23
1989 (3) SCR 696 referred to. Para 23 · ·
1970 (3) SCR 830 r~ferred to.
•
Para 24
B 1966 (1) SCR 102 referred to. Para 25
,, CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5884 of 2004.
,• From the Judgment and Order dated 03-07-2002 of the
C High Court of Judicature at Madras inA.S. No. 627of1991. ·
Mohan Prarsaran, Sr. Adv., Anand Venkatesh, Sridhar
Potaraju, Arjun Singh, Mukunda Rao Angara, Ms. V.E. ·
Gayathri, Ad vs. for the Appellant.
K. Ramamoorthy, Sr. Adv., N. Shoba, Sriram J .
. D Thalapathy, V. Adhimocilam, Shilp Vinod, S. Nandakumar,
Parivesh Singh (For P.V. Yogeswaran) Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.
E
1. The original plaintiff, CS· Benjamin (Respondent No.
11) is now dead and is represented by his three daughters
(for the sake of convenience they are being described as
plaintiff). Respondent No. 1-M/s. Gajaraj &Co. was the original
F landlord of the suit property and as per its party position in the
plaint it is being described as first defendant. The appellant
(respondent no.11 in High Court) is auction purcliaser of the
property in a court auction in an earlier suit filed by second
defendant-respondent No.2- Srinivasa Perumal Financing
G Corporation against first defendant for recovery of money frpm
first defendant who had mortgaged substantial part of suit land,
about 38 cents to the second respondent for the said nioney
due.
2. The instant suit was filed by the plaintiff as OS No.1538
H of 1980 in the court of Third Additional Subordinate Judge,
EMBASSY HOTELS PVT. LTD. v. M/S. GAJARAJ & CO. 607
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]

Coimbato.re for specific performance of an agreement for sale A
dated 27 .5.1978, on the allegation that the land owner, the first
defendant was acting against law in refuting the agreement
and not executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The
suit was dismissed by the judgment dated 30.4.1991. But
plaintiff's money was ordered to be refunded with interest@ B
12% per annum. Against that, the plaintiff preferred first appeal
bearing AS No.627 of 1991 which has been allowed by the
impugned judgment dated 3.7 .2002 rendered by the Division
Bench of the Madras High Court. ·
3. Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned senior counsel for the C
appellant, who was 11'h respondent before the High Court
highlighted the chronological list of events to point out that the
first defendant mortgaged the suit property on 25.1.1972 to
an extent of about 38 cents to the second defendant for availing
money.loan. The first defendant also owed money to 6th and D
7'h defendants. Defendant No.6 filed original suit No.421 of
1976 in the Cou'rt of Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in which
the present suit property was attached on 28.7.1976. Another
suit bearing OS No.352 of 1977 was also filed by the 7'h
defendant against the first defendant. E
4. Thereafter the second defendant on 23.1.1978 filed
original suit No.85 of 1978 in the same court at Coimbatore
for realization of his money dues, if required, by selling of the
property mortgaged in his favour through mortgage deed dated
25.1.1972. It was during the pendency of the above suits that F
the plaintiff, on 27.5.1978 entered into an agreement for sale
of the suit property measuring about 41.24 cents including the·
mortgaged property with the owner, the first defendant. The
plaintiff initially paid an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- against the
agreed consideration of Rs.6,00,000/-. Further amount of G
Rs.67, 7001- was also paid by the plaintiff to first defendant on
different occasions within a period of about one year. The
time ·limit of the agreement was extended from 30.6.1979 to
31.12.1979. It has been highlighted that as per clause 7 of the
agreement if the vendor fails to convey full title, the money paid H
608 ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 s . C.R.

A by the purchaser shall be refunded with interest at the rate of
15% per annum and other damages if suffered· by the ·
purchaser. In the suit preferred by secorid defendant, OS No.85
. of 1978 a preliminary decree was passed. on 9.2.1980. After
March 1980, the plaintiff and the first defendant could not agree
B on further extension of time for complying with the agreement
of sale. On 26.6.1980 an agreement of sale was entered·
between the appellant and firstdefendant and the property was
leased out to the appellant. . The appellant filed the present
suit OS No. 1538 of 1980 on 2o•h November, 1980. Final
c decree was passed in the mortgage suit OS No.85 of 1978
on 10.2.1981. In execution proceedings the mortgaged
property which is, in substance,;also.the suit property in the
present proceedings was purchased in Court auction by Mr.
P.K: Unni, ·said to' be Managing Director.of Embassy Hotels'~·
D the appellant, on 2Ef.8.1981 for a sum of Rs.7 ,52,000/-. .
. - ' .. ~ '
5. Efforts made by the plaintiff to get the sale of suit
property in execution proceedings arising .out of OS No.85 of
1978 set aside could not succeed. EA 2058 of 1981 filed by
the plaintiff on 22.10, 1981 under Order 21 Rule 89 of CPC
E along with deposit of the required amount was rejected by ttie
executing Court on 7 .5.1983 and on the same date sale was
confirmed and a sale certificate issued. The plaintiff's appeal
bearing MO No. 421of198~ was finally allowed.bythe High
- ., - I . . . '~

Court on 9.12.1986, but the matter was brought to this Court
F by Mr. . P.K. Unni. and- this Court by its judgment
.I
dated·2o•h
February, 1990, reported in 1990(2) SCC 378 granted leave
. and reversed the judgment of the High Court an'd the same
has acquired finality. < ' • . • · • . •

'
· 6. On the basis of the aforesaid fac~s Mr, Parasaran
G submitted. that the plaintiffs suit for specific performance was
rightly dismissed by the Trial Court and it should not have been
decreed in appeal by the High Court because of (i) res judicata
would apply, in view of judgment of thi.~ Court dated 20'h
February, 1990; (ii) The plaintiff could not have raised a
H collateral challenge to the sale certificate on the ground of
EMBASSY HOTELS PVT. LTD. v. M/S. GAJARAJ & CO. 609
[SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.]

alleged fraud, on the basis of mere submissions raised for the A
first time before the High Court; and (iii) There were no pleading
in support of alleged fraud nor any such issue was raised
. before the trial court.
7. In reply Mr. K. Ramamoorthy, senior advocate for the
plaintiff-respondent accepted that the plaintiff's suit was one B
for specific performance of agreen:ent for sale and there was
no direct or even indirect challenge to the sale certificate issued
by the executing Court on 7.5.1983. It was also not disputed
that there was no pleading or issue to support the ground of
fraud in respect of court sale of the suit property. But he C
emphatically argued that earlier judgment of this court in the
case of P.K. Unni (supra) could not constitute resjudicata.
8. According lo his submissions the judgment of this
Court dated 20'h February, 1990 was confined to the issue of
limitation prescribed under law for an application under Order D
21Rule 89 of the CPC and only on account of finding given by
this Court th"at the limitation would be only 30 days, the judgment
of the High Court was reversed, hence the judgment must be
confined only to be an expression of law regarding the period
of limitation and not judgment on merits of the case of the E
parties. ·
9. He also submitted that subsequently the law laid down
. in the case of P.K. Unni was overruled by this Court by
judgment in the case of Dadi Jagannadham vs. Jammu!u F
Ramu!u and Ors., 2001 (7) SCC 71.
10. Mr. Ramamoorthy laid much emphasis· on the
provisions of Order 34 Rule 5 of the CPC, which according to
him was the appropriate provision of law under which the offer
of deposit of the due amount ought to have been accepted by G
the concerned courts including this Court while hearing the
. appeal of Mr. P.K. Unni because there is no limitation of time
for making such a deposit and the aforesaid provision permits
deposits any time before the confirmation of sale.
H
: 610 SUPREME COURTREPORTS . [2014] 14S.C.R.

. -_ . . . _ .

.·.A 11. He placed several case law,s in support of relevance .
of Order 34 Rule 5 to the issue canvassed by him. He als.o .
placed judgrnents in support of legal propositionthatsince .
- the order rejecting the plaintiff's application under Order 21
Rule 89 and confirming the sale was subjected to appeal, the
B order confirming the sale could not be treated to be finarso
long as the appeal was pe~ding.
12. Since the senior couns.el for the appellant has not
disputed the p(oposition of law settled in the various case Jaws
.relied upo~ by .Mr. Ramarnoorthy, we propose to refe(to tho.se ·
C case laws'onty'in ~ri_effor Gon:siq~ring the relevant facts and
counter submissions.,in.respect,of pleas raised by Mr..
Ramamoorthy. · ·. · . · · · · · · .. . · ·

13. It is. not in dispute that the. Trial Court non suited the::>~. . .....
plaintiff on account of his finding in respect of issue N95. -{2> ·. .. ·
D and 5 which required an answer whether the plaintiff is.entitled··.•
.to relief under Specific Relief Act; whether the suit property."
had been sold in Court auction as·claimed by 11th defendant"
and whether the agreement dated 27.5.1978 is true, valid and .
binding on the defendant. Although the Trial Court gave a
E finding that the plainti.if was ready and willing to play his role
qua the agreementand.the agreement wasvalid, it further help"
in respect of the aforesaid issues that although the agreemenf ,_ ·~.· •.
was true and valid, the 11th defendant (appellant herein) having ·.· .· c::;'; ,._
purchased the property in the court auction and th~ .same~~· .; ( .~:
F having been confirmed, the aforesaid agreement will n·orbe ~ •:· •
binding on 11th defendant. The Trial c·ourt further held that the ..
first defendant was no longer the owner of the property and
therefore, the plaintiff cannot obtain any relief. The Trial Court
also found that the plaintiff fully well knew about the mortgage
G relating to the property and on that account also he was not·
· entitled to obtain the relief of specific performance. Interestingly
in paragraph 22 of the trial court judgment an affidavit filed by
the plaintiff to seek stay of trial of the suit as per Section 10 ...
CPC has been noticed. In that, according to the plaintiff's •
H.
EMBASSY HOTELS PVT. LTD. v. M/S. GAJARAJ & CO .. · 611 ·.
[SHIVAKIRTI SINGH, J.]

own stand, since the sale which was challenged in O.S.2058 A
of-1983 had not been set aside till then, the suit should not.b.e
· taken up for trial, otherwise it will be ihfructuous and plaihtiff
will have to make amendments to seek at least the balance of
sale proceeds.
14. The High Court was required to meetthe reasonings B
of the Trial Court particularly those based upon confirmation
of court sale.and sale certificate issued on that basis. The
High Court could not find any valid ground to reverse the said
finding of the trial, court except by proceeding to hold that it
was the first defendant who had induced the 6'" defendant to C
execute his decree by bringing the property to sale and by' ·
collusion, keep the auction a secret. After referring only to·
some averments in a reply statement of the plaintiff, in
paragraphs 33 .and 34 of the judgment, the High Court
rendered a finding that the first defendant is trying to commit D
fraud on the powers of the court by colluding with the decree
holders. As regards the rights of the court auction purchaser-
the appellant, the High_ Court has given only a passing
comment in the penultimate paragraph that the court auction
purchaser was fully aware of the pendency of the suit and from E
the facts it was clear that he had been acting at the instance of
and collusion with the first respondent.
15. The findings and reasoning given by the Hig\1 Court
as noticed above are in cibsolute djsregard ofthe fact that
there are no pleadings in the plaint to support the aforesaid F
conclusions nor any issue was framed in. respect of fraud or
collusion. The only issue in respect of court auction was issue
No. 2 : "whether the suit property had been sold in court auction
as represented by 11'" defendant?" This issue was rightly
answered by the trial court and has not been explicitly reversed G
by the High Court. The High Court has not declared that the
sale certificate was invalid or that the application under order
21 Rule 89 of the CPC was within time. _In fact, in view of
judgment of this Court dated 20'" February, 1990 in the case
H
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A of P.K. Unni rendered inter-parties, it was not open forthe High
Court to reverse the finding of the Trial Court on this relevant
issue.
16. So far as the emphatic reliance on Order 34 Rule 5
is concerned, it has rightly peen pointed out in reply by Mr.
B Parasaran that after 3-3% months of the judgment dated
February 20, 1990, the plaintiff filed application under Order
34 Rule 5 of the CPC bearing E.A. No. 1000 of 1990 before ·
the executing court in the proceeding relating to O.S. No.85 of
1978 and the same was dismissed on 11.6.1990. The plaintiff
C accepted the said order and preferred no appeal or revision
to challenge the same.
17. In view of the aforesaid facts it is not understandable
as to how the provisions of Order 34 Rule 5 of CPC can be of
any help to the plaintiff in the present suit filed only for specific
0 perfo~mance of an agreement.

18. The contentions that the plaintiff had made payment
in the court of all the amounts due from the defendant in the
. execution proceedings arising out of OS No.85 of 1978 on
E 26.10.1981, much before the sale was confirmed on 7.5.1983
and therefore right of redemption of the mortgagor- the first
defendant could not be extinguished in spite of confirmation
of sale, ought to have. been raised in the proceedings·
connected with OS No. 85 of 1978 including the execution
F proceedings for seeking a decision whether the present
plaintiff, without getting himself impleaded as a defendant could
have invoked the provisions of Order 34 Rule 5 or not and
further for a direction that his application under Order 21 Rule
89 betreated more appropriately as an application under Order
34 Rule 5 of the CPC. Such steps were clearly not taken and
a
G as result, between the parties the judgment of this Court dated
20th February, 1990 became final. Thereafter, the plaintiff
made an attempt and filed an application under Order 34 Rule
5 but that ·also was rejected by the executing court and the
H plaintiff did not take steps to challenge the same. In such
EMBASSY HOTELS PVT.LTD. v. M/S. GAJARAJ & CO. 613
[SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.]

circumstances, in our considered view, the only option was to A
directly challenge the court auction of the suit property and the
issuance of sale certificate. Learned counsel for the appellant
has correctly submitted that as a result of judgment of this Court
dated 20'h February, 1990 the order of the executing court
dated 7 .5.1983 got confirmed and the sale certificate obtained B
finality. As a sequel, the ownership of the suit property or at
least a major part of it got transferred from first defendant to
the auction purchaser-the appellant. In such· a situation, it is
not possible to accept the contention on behalf of the plaintiff
that the first defendant being a mortgagor will continue to have c
a right of redemption although the sale of mortgaged property
to a third party through a court auction became final.
19. Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act protects
the right of redemption available to a mortgagor by providing
that the mortgagor can exercise such a right by paying the D
mortgaged money at any time after the principal money has
become due. But the proviso clarifies that the right conferred
by that Section is available only if it has not been extinguished
by act of the parties or by decree of the court. The act of the
parties would cover act of the mortgagor and the mortgagee, E
if they are unable to settle the dispute arising out of money
· claim covered by the mortgage and by their action, allow the
mortgaged property to be sold through auction in favour of a
third party. Hence, it is not possible to accept the case of the
plaintiff-respondent that in spite of sale of the suit property F
becoming final through court auction, for the purpose of grant
of specific relief to the plaintiff in the present suit, the first
defendant would be deemed to still retain the right to redeem
the mortgage and transfer the suit property to the plaintiff
regardless of the right, title and possession -already legally G
vested in the auction purchaser-the appellant.
20 ..No doubt, if a fraud is alleged and proved, it can be
sufficient to get rid of most solemn of proceedings including
court proceedings. But in case of order of a court of competent
jurisdiction, this must be done only by throwing a direct H
614 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014J 14S:C.R ·

A challenge to the proceedings .by instituting a suit for that
purpose or through any appropriate legal proceeding which
may permit such direct challenge. Judgments of courts cannot
be ignored by another court in a collateral proceeding and that
also on mere swspicion offraud or collusion, as has been done
B in this case.
21. Learned counsel for the appellant has rightly placed
reliance for this purpose on paragraph 76 .of a recent judgment
of this Court in the case of Union of India vs~ Major S.P.
Sharma, 2014(6) SCC 351. Paragraph 76 of the judgment
C reads as follows:
"76. A decision rendered by a competent court cannot
be challenged in collateral proceedings for the reason
that if it is permitted to do so therewould be"confusion .
and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease.
D to have any meaning."
22. There is no dispute that the orders passed in the
execution proceedings relating to OS No. 85 of 1978 were by
a competent court which rejected the plaintiff's claims. Such
E orders cannot be ignored in a collateral proceeding. It is to
be kept inmind that the order confirming the sale and rejecting
the plaintiff's application under Order 21 Rule 89 for one reason
or the other was confirmed by this Court also, as noticed
earlier. It is clear that the High Court while allowing the suit for
F specific performance ignored the aforesaid cardinal principle
of law.
23. Before recording the final outcome of the aforesaid
discussions, out of deference to the senior counsel appearing
for the plaintiff, it is noted that he placed reliance upon the
G judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Chandra Mani
Saha vs. Anrjan Bibi, AIR 1934 PC 134 in support of the
proposition that where an appeal is taken from an order
disallowing the application to set aside the sale, the sale will
not become absolute within the meaning of Article 180 of the
H Limitation Act until the disposal of the appeal, even though
EMBASSY HOTELS PVT.LTD. v. MIS. GAJARAJ & CO. 615
· fSHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]

the lower court may have confirmed the sale. The Judgment A
of th~tMadras High Court in· the case of V.S. Subramania
· Asari vs. Ramaswami Pillai·, AIR 1937 Mad 560 was cited
forthewell recognized legal principle that Order 21 Rule 92 of
CPC requires passing of an order of c_onfirmation which makes
the sale absolute. The sale does notbeconie absolute merely B
on lapse of 30 days. Gour Chand Mullick vs. Pradyumna
Kumar Mullick, AIR 1945 Cal. 6 is also on the aforesaid lines
and inter-alia holds that an application under Order 21 Rule
89 may in an appropriate situation be treated as one under
Order 34 Rule 5 of the CPC. The case of Rama Krishna c
Rao vs. Chellayyamma,AIR 1953 SC 425 has also followed
the law noticed above as laid down in Chandra Mani Saha
vs. Anrjan Bibi (supra). Judgment in the case of
Mhadagonda Ramgonda Patil vs. Shripal Balwant
Rainade, 1988 (3) SCC 298, reiterated the proposition that. D
the mortgage can be redeemed by paying the dues even after
the sale has taken place but before ttie confirmation of such
sale. To sanie effect is the judgment in the case of Maganlal
vs. Jaiswal Industries, 1989 (4) SCC 344. Since there are
several other cases'on the point noted above, on which reliance E
was placed by the l1farned counsel for the plaintiff, no useful ·
purpose should be served by cataloging all those judgments.
· It is sufficient to notice the propositions of law indicated abo\/e ,...,,
as those have not been controverted by the leaned counsel for
the appellant and rightly so because in the present case they ·. f
are not relevant. .. '.·.: ,.

24. On the issue of collateral challenge to the judgment •
and order of Court as res judicata, learned counsel for the ·
plaintiff placed reliance upon Mathura Prasad BaJoo
Jaiswal vs. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, 1970(1) SCC 613. G
. Paragraph 9 of that judgment was highlighted .and it runs
. . thus: ·
"A question of jurisdiction of the Courts, or of procedure,
or a pure question of law unrelated to the right ofthe
parties to a previous suit, is not res judicata in the
subsequent suit." .. . H,
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A 25. Reliance was also placed upon Pandurang Dhoni
Chougule vs. Maruti Hari Jadhav, 1966 (1) SCR 102 for
the following view expressed therein:
"It is well settled that a plea of limitation or a plea of
res-judicata is a plea of law which concerns the
B jurisdiction of the Court which tries the proceedings."
26. We do not find the aforesaid propositions to be
relevant in the present case in view of issues noticed earlier
and the error noticed _in the judgment of the High Court under
C .appeal.
27. No doubt Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act vests
the Court with a judicial discretion in granting or not granting
specific performance. But in the present case the plaintiff
cannot gain anything from this Section because the Trial Court
0 rightly found that the suit property or substantial part of the same
had already been auctioned and first defendant had no longer
any title or ownership over the same and hence it was not
possible to grant a decree for a specific performance. As
· noticed and discussed earlier the view taken by the High Court
E on this issue is found to be wholly untenable. Hence the
judgment and decree under appeal passed by he High Court
is set aside and the judgment of the Trial Court is restored.
The appea·I is allowed to that extent. In the facts of the case,
there shall be no order as to costs.
F
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.