Holding

The sale certificate conveys title to the entire property within the described boundaries, and the High Court was not justified in reopening the subordinate court's factual finding.

Summary

A money decree against the respondent led to the auction sale of his property, which was purchased by the appellant. The sale certificate described the property by its boundaries and termed it a "terraced house". The respondent later claimed that only the terraced building, not the adjoining portion, was sold and sought a declaration that the sale certificate did not convey title to the latter. The subordinate judge held that the entire property within the described boundaries was sold, a finding of fact, and dismissed the petition. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, ordered a commissioner to inspect the property and set aside the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court held that a certificate of sale is a document of title that must be given its full effect; the description did not limit the sale to part of the land, and the factual finding of the lower court could not be reopened. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the subordinate judge’s order restored, allowing the appellant to retain title to the whole property.

Issues considered

What extent can a sale certificate be construed when it describes the property as a "terraced house"?
Whether the High Court, under Section 115 CPC, may reopen a factual finding of the subordinate court regarding the extent of property sold in execution.
Whether a petition under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC can be entertained to claim that the sale certificate does not pass title to a portion of the property.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 115, s. 151, s. 47

Subjects

execution proceedingssale certificatecertificate of titlerevisional jurisdictionSection 47 CPCSection 151 CPCproperty boundariesfactual findingauction saleappointment of commissioner

Judgment

A P. UDA YANI DEVI
v.
y
V.V. RAJESHWARA PRASAD RAO AND ANR.

FEBRUARY 24, 1995

B
(S.C. AGRAWAL AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Section 47 r/w S.151-Execution proceed-
ings-Money decree-Sale of propeity by auction-Ce1tificates of sale-Docu-

c ments of title-Not to be lightly regarded or loosely construed-Question as
to what was sold in execution of decree-Question offact-Revisional cowt
--}
/
not justified in reopening finding of fact.

A money decree was passed against respondent No. 1. In execution
of the said decree the property of respondent was sold by auction to the
D appellant. In the sale certificate the property that was sold was described.
The same description was given in the sale proclamation. Before issuance
of the sale certificate respondent No. 1 had filed petitions for setting aside
the sale on the ground that respondent No. 1 had only I/4th share in the
\
..
property and further that the bid was too low. A schedule filed alongwith
the petition gave the description of the property in the same terms as
E
mentioned in the sale proclamation and sale certificate. The petitions were
dismissed and the sale was confirmed. The appellant obtained possession
of the entire property within the boundaries as mentioned in the sale
certificate. After the delivery of the possession respondent No. 1 filed a suit
for a declaration that the sale certificate issued in favour of the appellant
F did not pass title to the property bearing Door No. 14/7 and related only \
to the terraced building and for a permanent injuction. During the pen-
-')-~
dency of the suit respondent No. 1 filed a petition in the execution proceed-
ings u/s 47/151 CPC wherein he prayed for a declaration that the sale
certificate did not pass titled to the appellant in respect of the property
G mentioned in the schedule to the said application. The petition was dis-
missed. The Court held that the petition schedule property was located
within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule to the execution petitions /

as well as in the schedule attached to the sale certificate. The contention
that there were two buildings, the terraced building and the upstairs
H building was rejected. A revistion petition filed against the order was
332
P.U.DEVI v. V.V.R.PRASADRAO[S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 333

allowed. The High Court held that when respondent No. 1 raised the A
contention that \\ithin the boundaries there. was other upstair building
with vacant site and that the property that was sold and delivered was only
the krraced building, the lower court ought to have appointed a Commis-
sioner. Matter was remitted to the executing court \\ith the direction to
appoint a Commissioner to make local inspection of the petition schedule B
property to dispose of the execution application in accordance mth law. A
review petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. These appeals were
filed against the orders of the High Court.

The appellant submitted that the High Court, in exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction was in error in interefering mth the order passed c
by the subordinate Judge dismissing the application filed by respondent
No. 1 under Section 47 r/ws 151. It was submitted that the boundaries of
the property which was sold in the auction sale was indicated in the sale
certificate and they were same boundaries as were mentioned in the sale
proclamation. The appellant urged that the sale certificate issued in favour D
of the appellant was conclusive and there was no infirmity in the order
passed by the lower Court.

Allo\\ing the appeal, the Court
E
HELD : 1.1. Certificates of sale are documents of title which ought
not ·to be lightly regarded or loosely construed. In the instant case, in the
sale certificate the boundaries of the property that was sold had been
clearly indicated. The mention of the words 'terraced house' in the descrip-
/ tion could not be construed to mean that only a part of the property falling
mthin the boundaries was sold and a part of the said property was left F
out. The expression "terraced house" being not an expression of precise
conrnotation, the main building having the terrace and a room on the first
floor could properly be described as the terraced house and other struc-
ture and land \\ithin the boundaries were part of the said property. The
possession of the entire property, including the house having a room on G
the first floor, was delivered to the appellant after the sale certificate had
been issued in his favour. What respondent No. 1 wanted was to divide the
propt!rty mentioned in the sale certificate in two portions. In view of the
descr.iption of the property in the sale certificate, it was not possible to
split up the property into two portions and confine the sale certificate to H
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A a part of the property and thereby alter the boundaries of the property
that had been sold. [338-F-H, 339-F]
'
Rambhadra Naidu v. Kadiliyasami Naicke1; (1921) LR481A 155 and
Shoedhyan singh and Ors. v. Musammat Sanichara Kuer and Ors., [1962) 2
SCR 753, relied on.
B
1.2. The question as to what was sold in execution of the decree is a
question of fact. In the present case, a finding recorded by the lower Court
that the entire property falling within the boundaries mentioned in the sale
certificate had been sold, was a finding of fact. The High Court, in exercise
C of its revisional jurisdiction, was not justified in reopening this finding of
fact. [339-G]

S.M. Jakati andAnr. v. S.M. Borkar and Ors., [1959] SCR 1384, relied
on.

D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3030-31
of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.3.94 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in C.R.P. No. 3998/91 & 23.11.94 in Rev. C.M.P. No. 8524 of
1994.
E
R.F. Nariman, C. Balasubramanium, Ms. Asha Nair and Ram Kumar
for the Appellant.

L.P. Dhar, Manisha Dhar, Alok Dhar and M.M. Kashyap I
(Caveators) for the Respondents. \

F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.C. AGRAWAL, J. Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
G These appeals are by the auction purchaser of a property sold to him
in execution proceedings. A money decree was passed against respondent
No. 1 in O.S. No. 148 of 1970 filed by respondent No. 2. In execution of
the said decree the property of respondent No. 1 was sold by auction on
March 26, 1985 to the appellant whose bid of Rs. 3,01,000 was the highest.
H In the sale certificate dated April 8, 1987 the property that was sold was
P.U.DEVI v. V.V.R.PRASADRAO[S.C.AGRAWAL,J.) 335

thm. described in the Schedule : A
"East Godavari District, Rajahmundry Taluk, Gandhi- Nagaram,
Block No. II, Rajahmundry belonging to the judgment debtors and
named as "Chandrika Nilayam" in S.S. No. 67 and present No. 21-6
terraced house, situated within the following boundaries -
B
East House of M.V. Reddy

South Main Road

West Park
c
North House of Mullapudi Satyanarayana"

The same description was given in the sale proclamation. Before
issuance of the sale certificate respondent No. 1 had filed petitions, E.A.
Nos. 387 of 1985 and 506 of 1985 under Order 21 Rules 90 and 91, C.P.C., D
for setting aside the sale which was held on March 26, 1985. One of the
grOLmds that was urged for stetting aside the sale in the said petitions was
that respondent No. 1 had only 1/4th share in the property and further that
the property was worth Rs. 5 lakhs and the bid was too low. Along with
the said petitions respondent No. 1 also filed a schedule which gave the E
description of the property in the same terms as mentioned in the sale
proclamation and sale certificate. The said petitions were dismissed by the
executing court by order dated April 21, 1986 and the sale was confirmed
on April 8, 1987 and the sale· certificate was granted to the appellant. In
pursuance of the sale certificate the appellant obtained possession of the
ent::re property within the boundaries as mentioned in the sale certificate F
on April 22, 1987. After the delivery of the possession respondent No. 1
filed a suit, O.S. No. 107/87, in the court of Subordinate Judge, Rajah-'
mu:ndry for a declaration that the sale certificate dated April 8, 1987 issued
in favour of the appellant does not pass title to the property bearing Door
No . 14/7 and relates only to the terraced building and for a permanent G
injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of respondent No. 1 in respect of the ?ther
building. During the pendency of the said suit respondent No. 1 filed a
petition, E.A. No. 478of1990, in the execution proceedings, under Section
47 read with Section 151 C.P.C. wherein he prayed for a declaration that H
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 2 S.C.R.

A Lhe sale certificate does not pass title to the appellant in respect of the
property mentioned in the schedule to the said application, hereinafter
referred to as "the petition shcedulc property", on the ground that even
though there was no attachment and sale of the said property and even
though the appellant did not purchase the same and even though the sale
B certificate does not contain it the appellant had taken the delivery of
possession of the said property in the execution proceedings. The boun-
daries of the petition schedule property are thus described by respondent
No. 1 in the said petition -

East House belonging to M.V. Reddy
c
West Terraced building now taken delivery
by the first respondent (appellant herein)

South Main Road

D North House belonging to Mullapudi Satyanarayana.

The said petition was contested by the appellant as well as by the
decree holder (respondent No. 2) who asserted that the petition shcedule
property was also brought to sale after attachment and was in fact sold by
E the court and it is also covered by the sale certificate. The Subordinate
Judge, by order dated November 5, 1991, dismissed the said petition of
respondent No. 1. It was held that the petition schedule property is located
within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule to the execution petition
as well as in the schedule attached to the sale certificate. The Subordinate
Judge rejected the contention that there was two buildings, the terraced \
F building and the upstair building, and held that there is only one structure
on the terrace which looks like a stair-case room and there is absolutely
no upstair building at all and that the major portion of the building is a ----,...~
terraced one and that in spite of the location of a small room on the terrace
the building remains a terraced building only. According to the Subor-
G dinate Judge the sale proclamation and sale certificate clearly go to show
that the property purchased by the appellant extends upto the park on the
west and upto the house of M.V. Reddy on the east and that the petition )
schedule property is part and parcel of the property within the said
/
boundaries and, therefore, the petition shcedule property was also pur-
H chased by the appellant under the sale certificate and the appellant was
P.U.DEVI v. V.V.R.PRASADRAO[S.CAGMWAL,J.] 337

entitled for the entire property including the petition schedule property A
under the sale certificate and is entitled to take the delivery of the entire
property including the petition schedule property. Feeling aggrieved by the
said order of the Subordinate Judge respondent No. 1 filed a revision
petition, C.R.P. No. 3998 of 1991, in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The
said revision petition was allowed by the High Court by judgment dated B
March 29, 1994. The High Court was of the view that when respondent No.
1 raised the contention that within the boundaries there is other upstair
building with vacant site of 300 and odd sq. yards and that the property
that was sold pursuant to the auction and delivered was only the terraced
building, the lower court ought to have appointed a Commissioner in order
to find whether in fact there is any upstair building in the said site and that C
if there is also upstair building and vacant site within the boundaries the
appellant is not entitled to take delivery of the upstair buidling as the only
property that was brought to sale was the terraced building within the
boundaries mentioned therein and further that the sale certificate does not
refer to the upstair building and the vacant site. The High Court, therefore, D
remitted the matter to the executing court with the direction to appoint a
Commissioner to make local inspection of the petition schedule property
and if, within the boundaries mentioned in the sale certificate, there is an
upstair building which is not included in the sale certificate and the vacant
site adjacent to it he may direct re-delivery of that property and if there is E
no upstair building and the vacant site within the boundaries mentioned in
the sale certificate, the Subordinate Judge may dispose of the execution
application in accordance with law. The appellant filed a review petition
for the review of the said order of the High Court but the same was
/
/ dismissed by order dated November 23, 1994. These appeals are filed F
against the said orders of the High Court dated March 29, 1994 and
November 23, 1994.

Shri R.F. Nariman, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant, has submitted that the High Court, in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C., was in error in interferring with the G
order passed by the Subordinate Judge dismissing the application filed by
respondent No. 1 under Section 47 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The
submission of Shri Nariman was that the boundaries of the property which
was sold in the auction sale are clearly indicated in the sale certificate and
H
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A they are the same boundaries as are mentioned in the sale proclamation
and that in view of the said description in the sale certificate the entire
property lying within those boundaries was the subject-matter of sale in
favour of the appellant. The submission of Shri Nariman was that the sale
certificate issued in favour of the appellant is conclusive and that the
B Subordinate Judge had correctly construed it and that there was no infir-
mity in the order passed by the Subordinate Judge which could justify
interference by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

We find considerable substance in this contention. The position in
law is well-settled that "certificates of sale are documents of title which
C ought not to be lightly regarded or losely construed." [See : Rambhadra
Naidu v. Kadiriyasami Naicker, (1921) LR 48 IA 155. In Sheodhyan Singh
& Ors. v. Musammat Sanichara Kuer & Ors., [1962] 2 SCR 753, in the sale
certificate the boundaries as well as the plot number were mentioned but
there was a mistake in mentioning the plot number. It was held :
D
"The matter may have been different if no boundaries had been
given in the final decree for sale as well as in the sale certificate
and only the plot number was mentioned. But where we have both
the boundaries and the plot number and the circumstances are as
E in this case, the mistake in the plot number must be treated as
mere misdescription which does not affect the identity of the
property sold." [p.759]

In the instant case, we find that in the sale certificate the boundaries
\
of the property that was sold have been clearly indicated. In addition, the \"-
F sale certificate also gives the description of the property as "Chandrika
Nilayam" bearing the number "S.S. No. 67 and present No. 21-6". The ·~·
mention of the words "terraced house" in the description cannot be con-
strued to mean that only a part of the property falling within the boundaries
was sold and a part of the said property was left out. The expression
G "terraced house" is not an expression of precise connotation as pointed out
by the Subordinate Judge. The main building having the terrace and a room
)
on the first floor can properly be described as the terraced house and other
structures and land within the boundaries are part of the said property.
There is no dispute that the possession of the entire property, including
H the house having a room on the first floor, was delivered to the appellant
P.U.DEVI v. V.V.R.PRASADRAO(S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 339

after the sale certificate has been issued in his favour. What respondent A
No. 1 wants is to divide the property mentioned in the sale certificate in
two portions having the following boundaries :

(I) East House of M.V. Reddy

West Terraced building mentioned in B
the sale certificate

South Main Road

North House of Mullapudi Satyanarayana
c
(II) East Ifulding having a room on the
first floor and open land

West Park

South Main Road D
North House belonging to Mullapudi
... ,,I
Satyanarayana

According to respondent No. 1 only property (II) was sold in the
auction sale and is covered by the sale certificate. The plain terms of the E
sale certificate do not lend suppmt to this contention. According to the
sale certificate the entire property falling within the boundaries was the
subject-matter of the sale. In view of the said description in the sale
certificate it is not possible to split up the property into two portions and
.1
confine the sale certificate to a part of the property and thereby alter the F
boundaries of the property that has been sold.

Moreover, it is settled law that the question as to what was sold in
execution of the decree is a question of fact. [See : S.M. Jakati & Anr. v.
S.M. Borkar & Ors., [1959) SCR 1384, at p. 1401.) In the present case, the
Subordinate Judge, after an examination of the sale certificate and other G
documents, has recorded a finding that the entire property falling within
the boundaries mentioned in the sale certificate has been sold. That was a
finding of fact. The High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction,
was not justified in reopening the finding of fact recorded by the Subor-
dinate Judge. The judgment of the High Court cannot, therefore, be upheld H
/
340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R ..

A and must be set aside.
·The appeals are accordingly allowed, the judgment of the High Court \I
I

dated March 29, 1994 as well as the order dated November 23, 1994 are
set aside and the order dated November 5, 1991 passed by the Subordinate
Judge is restored. The appellant will be entitled to his costs.
B
A.G. App/als allowed.