PARBATI DEVIversusPURNA PATRA AND ORS.

                                PARBATI DEVI                                   A
                                     v.
                        PURNA PATRA AND ORS.

                            DECEMBER 11, 1996

              [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]                            B

        Auction sale by Coult-B purchased I/4th share and sold the same to
H-H in tum sold the property to appellant-Suit for partition filed by appel-
lant-Suit deceased by Trial Court and affirmed by Appellate Court-High
Court reversed the decree holding that there was no proof of possession of C
the property delivered under the court sale, and that the appellant had not
proved what extent of the land they had purchased-Appeal before Supreme
Court-Held sale certificate issued by the Court clearly indicated particulars
of land purchased by B-1Jut when the entry maintained in the court register
of delivery of possession is read with the sale certificate issued by the court, D
it is obvious that what was delivered to B was the property mentioned in the
sale certificate-Thereby he became the co-owner-The appellant being suc-
cessor-in-interest having purchased the self-same property, had become co-
owner along with the respondents-Thereby the suit for partition was rightly
decreed by the courts below-The view taken by the High Court is clearly
illegal.                                                                         E
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3336 of
1979.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 2.8.78 of the Orissa High Court
in S.A. No. 8 of 1975.                                                          F
        Vmoo Bhagat for the Appellant.

        V.J. Francis for the Respondents.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :                       G
        Substitution allowed.

     This appeal, by special leave, arises from the reversing judgment of
the High Court of Orissa in Second Appeal No. 8n5, dated 2.8.1978. The
admitted position is that in Suit No. 29/23 of 1937 in the Court of Small H
                                   975
    976                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A Causes, execution was laid in M.S. No. 217/37, 1/4th share of the property
  bearing Touzi Nos. 2498 and 2503/354 was brought to sale on 16.2.1938.               <
  One Babu Suryanarayan, a practicing advocate of that court, had beco~e
  the auction purchaser. He had the possession of the 1/4th specified share
  therein from the court. Subsequently, he sold the self-same property by a
B registered sale deed in 1940 to one Hemamali Devi, daughter of another .
  practicing advocate. Hemamali Devi in turn sold the property to the
  appellant in 1950 under Ex. 2 (A), dated 14.10.1950. On the basis thereof,
  the appellant filed the suit for partition. The respondents had purchased
  the property and other properties from the judgment-debtor in the suit.
  They disclaimed the purchase made by Babu Suryanarayan and his sale in
C favour of Hemamali Devi and further sale in favour of the appellant. Thus
  it is a case of total denial of the title of the appellant. The Trial Court
  decreed the suit and the appellate Court confirmed the same for partition
  of 1/4th share and delivery of possession by metes and bounds by passing
  a final decree. The High Court reversed the said decree primarily on two
D grounds, viz. that there is no proof of possession of the property delivered
  under the court sale, and that the appellant has not proved what extent of
  the land they had purchased. Under these circumstance§; the appellant
  cannot seek possession by partition of the land. The view taken by the High
  Court is clearly illegal. It is seen that the Sale Certificate issued by the court
  clearly indicates the particulars of the lands mentioned as under :
E
             "1. Touzi No. 2498 - Thana No. 214, Mouza - Baharabisnabar in
             District Cuttack, P.S., Thana and Sub-registrar Cuttack Sadar, Ph.
             Bakhrabad in Khata No. 431 - Area - Ac. 0.19 - rent - Rs. 0.12.6.
             From this four annas share of the defendant- debtor is Ac. 0.04 -
             7 Kadis rent Rs. 0.3 ..2-1/2. This land is auctioned at a sum of Rs.
F            4.

                                      Schedule

              Khasada No. 1609 ... Ac. 0.19.
G             Rs. 0.4.0 annas share of the defendant-debtor Ac. 0.04 Kadis 0.07.

              2. Touzi No 2502/354 - Thana No. 214 in District Cuttack, P.S. and
              Thana and subregistrar Cuttack Sadar Ph. Bakhrabad, Mouza
              Baharabisnabar, Khata No. 894 - Area Ac.O. 170 Dec. - rebd Rs.
H             0.9.3. From this the share of the defendant- debtor and his brother
                             PARBATIDEVI v. PURNAPA1RA                           977

                  is eight annas (Rs. 0.3.0) Area Ac. 0.84 Dec. 10 Kadis - rent - Rs.   A
                  0.4.7-1/2 which is auctioned at a price of Rs. 20.

               Description

                  From the Tafsil No. 811 Ac. 0.170 Dec. the 4 annas share of this
                  defendant-debtor is Ac. 0.42 dee. 5 Kadis."                           B

                The same was sold with description of boundaries in the sale made
         in favour of the Hemamali Devi and also in the subsequent sale to the
         appellant under Ex. 2(A). Thus it is clear that Babu Suryanarayan had
         purchased the l/4th share in the above described property. Thereby he
         became a co-owner with other 3/4th shareholders whose property 'Yas
                                                                                        c
         purchased by the respondents. The High Court also is clearly in error in
         holding that there is no proof of possession. Since the appellant had sought
         summoning of the warrant of delivery of possession, which was not avail-
         able, the court register was summoned which contained an entry regarding
         delivery of the possession. No doubt the description of the property D
         delivered was not mentioned in the delivery warrant. When the entry
         maintained in the court register of delivery of possession is read with the
         sale certificate issued by the court, it is obvious that what was delivered to
         Babu Suryanarayan, a practicing advocate, was the property mentioned in
         the sale certificate. The property was leased out and rent was realised.
                                                                                        E
         Thereby he became the co-owner. The appellant being successor-in- inter-
         est having purchased the self-same property, had become co- owner along
         with the respondents. Thereby the suit for partition was rightly decreed by
         the courts below.

               The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree of the        F
         High Court stands set aside and that of the Trial Court as confirmed by
         the appellate Court stand confirmed. It is open to the parties to proceed
         with the execution of the decree in filing an application for passing a fmal
         decree and take further steps according to law. No costs.

         T.N.A.                                                     Appeal allowed.     G
-   ..