SIDDAGANGAIAH (D) THR. LRS.versusN.K. GIRIRAJA SHETTY (D) THR. LRS.

                         [2018] 6 S.C.R. 457                                 457


                SIDDAGANGAIAH (D) THR. LRS.                                  A
                                    v.
             N.K. GIRIRAJA SHETTY (D) THR. LRS.
                    (Civil Appeal No. 5007 of 2018)
                             MAY 11, 2018                                    B
      [ARUN MISHRA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
      Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
       Or.XXI r.90, r/w s.47 – Suit for title and declaration filed on
the basis of purchase of suit property from defendant no.1 –                 C
Defendant no. 2 who is wife of defendant no. 1 contended that
defendant no. 1 could not have sold the suit property to plaintiff as
she had obtained charge on the suit property in a maintenance suit
– Her case was that her husband in collusion with the plaintiff
orchestrated a nominal and fictitious sale deed and the said sale
                                                                             D
deed was executed during the pendency of maintenance suit and,
thus, was hit by s.52 of TP Act – The said suit was finally held in her
favour and she obtained decree and the property was auctioned
and successfully purchased by her in court auction – Defendant
no. 1 filed an application under Or.XXI, r.90 and plaintiff also filed
an application under s.47 r/w Or.XXI, r.90 to set aside the sale –           E
Application of defendant no.1 was dismissed as not pressed –
Application by plaintiff for setting aside the sale was also dismissed
in default of appearance and sale was confirmed – Defendant no.2
sold the suit property to appellant-defendant no.3 – Plaintiff
suppressing the factum of having filed application under Or.XXI,
                                                                             F
r.90 and its dismissal filed suit for declaration of title and restoration
of possession – Whether the suit was hit by principle of res judicata
in view of dismissal of application under Or.XXI, r.90 r/w s.47 –
Held: Where an application has been filed under Or.XXI, r.90 to set
aside a sale on the ground of material irregularity, and the sale is
confirmed under r.92(1) of Or.XXI, the objector is precluded by              G
virtue of the provisions under Or.XXI, r.92(3) from bringing a suit
to set aside the sale on the same grounds – The auction purchase
made by defendant no.2 (decree-holder) had attained finality –
Confirmation of sale was not questioned by the plaintiff – Thus, no
                                                                             H
                                   457
458            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A     relief could have been granted – The earlier orders attained finality
      and, therefore, operated as a bar for the entertainment of the fresh
      suit – As regards question of lis pendens, on the date of purchase of
      suit property by plaintiff, the suit filed by defendant no.2 was
      pending – Thus, the provisions contained in s.52 would clearly apply
      to the case – Suit for title and declaration liable to be dismissed –
B
      Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.52 – lis pendens – Doctrine of
      res judicata.
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1.1 Sub-rule (1) of Order XXI Rule 90 makes it
C     clear that when any immovable property has been sold in
      execution of a decree, the decree-holder or the purchaser or any
      other person entitled to share in a ratable distribution of assets,
      or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Court
      to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or
      fraud in publishing or conducting it. As provided in sub-rule (2)
D     of Rule 90 of Order XXI merely on the ground of irregularity or
      fraud, the sale shall not be set aside unless the substantial injury
      has been caused to the objector by reason of such irregularity or
      fraud and such an objection should be the one which could not
      have been raised before the date on which the proclamation of
E     sale was drawn up as provided in Order XXI Rule 90 sub-rule (3)
      and mere defect or absence of attachment of the property shall
      not be a ground for setting aside a sale. It is necessary to prove
      the substantial injury where fraud or material irregularity has taken
      place whereby injustice had been suffered. In the present case,
      the application under Order XXI Rule 90 was filed by original
F     plaintiff which was dismissed for default in appearance. It was
      nonetheless dismissal of the application so filed. It was not a case
      set up that the decree passed in maintenance case was obtained
      by fraud and substantial injury thereby has been caused. [Para
      23] [470-C-F]
G            Rajender Singh v. Ramdhar Singh & Ors. AIR 2001
            SC 2220 – relied on.
           1.2 Where an application has been filed under Rule 90
      Order XXI CPC to set aside a sale on the ground of material

H
SIDDAGANGAIAH (D) THR. LRS. v. N.K. GIRIRAJA SHETTY                      459
                  (D) THR. LRS.

irregularity, and the sale is confirmed under Rule 92(1) of Order        A
XXI, the objector is precluded by virtue of the provisions under
Order XXI Rule 92(3) from bringing a suit to set aside the sale
on the same grounds. [Para 24] [470-G]
      Brahayya v. Appayya, (1921) 44 Mad. 351 : 62 IC
      203 : AIR 21 Mad. 121, Ma Saw v. Maung Kyaw AIR                    B
      28 Rang 18; Nand Kishore v. Sultan AIR 1926 Lah
      165 – approved.
       1.3 When the auction purchaser is the decree-holder
himself and when an application is made to set aside the sale on
a ground other than that covered by Rule 90 and no application           C
has been made under Rule 89, the case would fall under section
47. Thus, it would depend upon the grounds which are urged in
the application. It is permissible to join a claim to set aside a sale
on the ground of material irregularity under Order XXI, Rule 90
with a claim under section 47 for a declaration that the sale is a
nullity as the decree was passed after the death of the judgment-        D
debtor. Objection by legal representatives of deceased judgment-
debtor that suit land was ancestral property and sale was not
binding on them can be raised under section 47 read with Order
XXI Rule 90. However, it would depend upon the nature of the
objection whether it was covered under Rule 90 of Order XXI              E
CPC or not. There can be restoration of the petition dismissed
for default filed under Order XXI Rule 90 and thereafter if sale
has been confirmed, it is provided under Order XXI Rule 92(3)
that no suit to set aside an order made under Rule 92(1) shall be
brought by any person against whom such an order is made. Order
XXI Rule 92(1) provides that where an application has been filed         F
under Order XXI Rule 89, 90 or 91, same has been disallowed,
the court shall make an order confirming the sale and thereupon
the sale shall become absolute, and no suit shall lie as per the
mandate of sub-rule (3) of Rule 92 of Order XXI CPC against
whom such an order is made. The order confirming the sale may            G
be made either where no application is made at all to set aside
the sale or where an application is made and disallowed may be
that it is dismissed for default. No suit shall lie in either case to
set aside the order confirming the sale. The refusal to set aside a

                                                                         H
460           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A     sale is an order appealable. In case the court has set aside or
      refused to set aside a sale that would include a case where an
      application under Order XXI Rule 89, 90 or 91 has been
      dismissed for default. [Para 25] [471-A-F]
            Superior Bank Ltd. v. Budh Singh, (1924) 22 All LJ
B           413 ; Akshia v. Govindarajulu (1924) 47 MLJ 549 –
            approved.
            2.1 In the instant case admittedly an application was filed
      by original plaintiff under Order XXI, Rule 90 read with section
      47, on the ground that he was the owner of the land in question
C     purchased by a sale deed dated 9.11.1974 for a sum of Rs.10,000/
      - and was placed in possession. He was not aware of the court
      sale. There was no beat of drums before the auction was held.
      He was not aware of the execution proceedings. He was a
      purchaser for value. The property was not correctly valued. There
      were material irregularities in the conduct of the sale. Hardship
D     would be caused in case auction was confirmed. Thus, prayer
      was made to set aside the auction sale. The aforesaid application
      had been dismissed. Thus, Order XXI Rule 92(3) would operate
      as a bar for the entertainment of the fresh suit on the ground so
      urged. [Para 26] [471-G-H; 472-A-B]
E            2.2 The plaintiff has totally suppressed the factum of court
      auction sale and confirmation in the plaint and did not make any
      averment that he had filed an application under Order XXI Rule
      90(1) and it was dismissed on 31.3.1978 whereas the suit was
      filed on 19.4.1978 after 19 days of the dismissal of the objection
F     and confirmation of the sale. The plaintiff has not questioned the
      auction so held by the court on the ground of fraud or any material
      irregularity. He has claimed himself to be a bona fide purchaser.
      That plea was also raised in the application filed under Order
      XXI Rule 90. Dismissal of the same would preclude him to file a
      fresh suit, it was incumbent upon him to question the court auction
G     on any permissible grounds necessary for the entertainment of
      fresh suit but that has not been done. Order VI Rule 4 CPC
      provides that the plea of fraud, misrepresentation, and collusion
      has to specifically set out in the pleadings before any finding can
      be given on the same. There is no evidence on record for
H     substantiating the plea which itself was not taken, it has neither
SIDDAGANGAIAH (D) THR. LRS. v. N.K. GIRIRAJA SHETTY                     461
                  (D) THR. LRS.

been substantiated. Thus, the first appellate court and the High        A
Court have committed gross illegality by giving the finding with
respect to fraud and collusion of the decree-holder and judgment
debtor in the court auction so held. The auction purchase made
by decree-holder had attained finality. Confirmation of sale was
not questioned by the plaintiff. Thus, no relief could have been
                                                                        B
granted and the earlier orders have attained finality and operate
as a bar for the entertainment of the fresh suit. [Para 27, 28]
[472-B-D, E-G]
      2.3 Coming to the question of lis pendens, decree-holder
had filed the suit in 1968 for the creation of charge of maintenance
inter alia on the properties in question. Explanation to Section        C
52 of the TP Act makes it clear that pendency of a suit or
proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the
presentation of the plaint. Thus, on the date of execution of the
sale deed on 9.11.1974, the suit filed by decree-holder was
pending. Thus, the provisions contained in section 52 would             D
clearly apply to the case. [Para 29] [472-G-H; 473-A-B]
      Nagubai Ammal & Ors. v. B. Shama Rao & Ors.
      AIR 1956 SC 593 – relied on.
       3. Section 39 of TP Act clearly makes out that charge of
maintenance can be enforced against the immovable property              E
held by a transferee. In the instant case, the transferee was not
put in possession of the property is apparent from the plaint and
possession of defendant No.1. The sale also does not appear to
be bona fide. It was clear with the intent to defeat the claim of the
wife for maintenance that is why possession had not been handed         F
over. The case of the plaintiff that though sale deed was executed
in 1974, defendant No.1 again took forcible possession in 1976,
is not worthy of acceptance. Apart from that it is not so pleaded
in the application under Order XXI Rule 90 that he was not aware
of the pendency of the suit at the time of execution of the sale
deed on 9.11.1974. He was a close friend of defendant No.1 and          G
was obviously aware of the factum of litigation pending since 1968.
Thus, he could not be said to be a bona fide purchaser at all.
Apart from that, the application under Order XXI Rule 90 read
with section 47 CPC containing the said plea stood dismissed.
[Para 31] [474-B-E]                                                     H
462            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A           Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike & Ors. (2006)
            8 SCC 75 – held inapplicable.
            Nani Gopal Paul v. T. Prasad Singh & Ors. (1995) 3
            SCC 579; Lal Chand v. VIIIth Addl. District Judge &
            Ors. (1997) 4 SCC 356 – referred to.
B           4.1 In the instant case, there is no admission after parting
      with the interest made in the execution proceedings inter se
      husband and wife. The auction was held by the court in accordance
      with law. It was not the case set up that the decree passed in the
      maintenance suit was based upon fraud or a collusive one. Nor
C     was such a case so set up with respect to the auction of the
      properties in the execution of the decree. On the contrary, the
      husband had preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree
      passed in the maintenance case, which was dismissed on merits.
      [Para 40] [476-G-H; 477-A]
D           4.2 After parting with the interest, no admission with
      respect to the interest which has been parted away is admissible,
      Section 18 of Evidence Act is not attracted in the fact-situation of
      the instant case. The so-called settlement entered into between
      the husband and wife on 5.8.1978 has not been pressed into
      service by either and has been disowned by the husband and wife
E     both. They set up a case that no such settlement had been entered
      into nor any claim had been made by them on the basis thereof.
      Had that been the case, the provisions of section 18 of the
      Evidence Act would have been attracted. [Para 40] [477-F-G]
            V. Swarajyalaxmi & Ors. v. Authorised Officer, Land
F           Reforms, AIR 2003 SC 2347: [2003] 3 SCR 575 – held
            inapplicable.
                             Case Law Reference
      (1995) 3 SCC 579               referred to        Paras 21, 37
G     AIR 2001 SC 2220               relied on          Para 23
      (1921) 44 Mad. 351             approved           Para 24
      AIR 1926 Lah 165               approved           Para 24
      (1924) 22 All LJ 413           approved           Para 25
      (1924) 47 MLJ 549              approved           Para 25
H
 SIDDAGANGAIAH (D) THR. LRS. v. N.K. GIRIRAJA SHETTY                           463
                   (D) THR. LRS.

AIR 1956 SC 593                    relied on                 Para 29           A
(2006) 8 SCC 75                    held inapplicable         Para 35
(1997) 4 SCC 356                   referred to               Para 39
[2003] 3 SCR 575                   held inapplicable         Para 41

                                                                               B
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5007
of 2018.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2014 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Regular Second Appeal No. 2633 of 2011.
    Raju Ram Chandran, Sr. Adv., Joseph Pookkatt, Sheshagiri Rao,              C
Dhawesh Pahuja, M/s. Ap & J Chambers, Advs. for the Appellant.
     S. S. Nagananda, Sr. Adv., Shyam Koundinya, Ms. K. V. Bharathi
Upadhyaya, Advs. for the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                               D
      ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. Leave granted.
        2. The appeal has been preferred by the defendant. Backdrop
facts indicate that one Thopamma wife of Siddagirigowda filed suit O.S.
No.245/1968 against her husband in the Court of Munsiff, Doddaballapur
for grant of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.300 per month and         E
for creating a charge on 13 properties mentioned in the plaint schedule.
The suit was filed on 17.1.1968. During the pendency of the said suit
said Siddagirigowda husband of Thopamma executed a sale deed for a
sum of Rs.10,000/- in respect of survey No.11 admeasuring 5 acres 18
guntas and survey No.68/1 admeasuring 18 guntas, item Nos. 10 and 13
                                                                               F
in the aforesaid suit in favour of N.K.Giriraja Shetty, father of respondent
No.1. On 6.2.1975, a declaration of handing over possession was executed
by Siddagirigowda in favour of purchaser regarding delivery of possession
of the properties.
       3. The suit filed by Thopamma i.e. O.S. No.245 of 1968 was
decreed on 24.6.1976 that is by granting a maintenance allowance of            G
Rs.100/- per month recoverable from her husband from the date of filing
of the plaint till realisation and charge were created on the suit schedule
properties including the property which was sold to N.K. Giriraja Shetty
on 9.11.1974. The first appeal against the same was dismissed on merits
on 1.9.1976.                                                                   H
464            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A            4. As the decree was not satisfied, Thopamma, the decree-holder
      filed an execution petition for enforcement of the decree of maintenance
      passed in the aforesaid suit. On 28.9.1977, Thopamma filed an application
      under Order XXI Rule 72 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for
      short, ‘CPC’) in Court to grant permission to bid at the time of auction of
      the properties by the court in the execution case by setting off the claim.
B
      The executing court permitted Thopamma to bid with respect to item
      Nos.1, 7, 8 and 13 by setting off the maintenance amount. The
      maintenance arrears had amassed to Rs.11,600/-.
           5. On 5.10.1977, auction of the schedule properties was held and
      Thopamma purchased item Nos.1, 7, 8 and 13 for Rs.10,185/-.
C
             6. Siddagirigowda filed an application under Order XXI Rule 90
      CPC on 16.11.1977. Father of respondent No.1, N.K. Giriraja Shetty
      also filed an application under section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 90
      CPC to set aside the sale held on 5.10.1977. On 5.1.1978 settlement
      deed was executed between Siddagirigowda and Thopamma by which
D     item Nos.13, 5, 10 and 12 in O.S. No.245 of 1968 and Khasra No.12
      (house) were allotted to Thopamma. However, no interest being claimed
      on the basis of the deed, and its execution had been denied by the parties
      to it.
            7. On 31.3.1978, an application filed by Siddagirigowda was
E     dismissed as not pressed under Order XXI Rule 90 whereas the
      application filed by N.K. Giriraja Shetty in execution case for setting
      aside the sale was dismissed in default of appearance and sale was
      confirmed in favour of Thopamma.
             8. N.K. Giriraja Shetty suppressing the factum of filing of the
F     application under Order XXI Rule 90 read with section 47 and its dismissal
      filed Suit No.109 of 1978 for the declaration of title and restoration of
      possession in the Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Nelmangala.
      The suit was later on renumbered as O.S. No.85 of 1989. However,
      sale certificate was issued by the executing court in favour of Thopamma
G     on 1.1.1979 and possession certificate on 29.1.1979 and possession was
      delivered to her.
            9. The plaintiff, N.K. Giriraja Shetty averred in O.S. No. No.85
      of 1989 that he had bona fide purchased the property for a sum of
      Rs.10,000/- on 9.11.1974. Possession was also delivered, entries were
      made in the pahanies, he continued in possession till 1976. Thereafter,
H
 SIDDAGANGAIAH (D) THR. LRS. v. N.K. GIRIRAJA SHETTY                          465
          (D) THR. LRS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

defendant dispossessed him in the year 1976. Defendant promised to            A
hand over the possession as such the plaintiff did not take any action.
However, he entered into a deed of settlement in favour of his wife on
5.1.1978 of which he had no right. The title continued to vest with the
plaintiff. He prayed for mesne profits also. Plaintiff had later on amended
the plaint and averred that defendants have colluded with each other in
                                                                              B
making the plaintiff to invest heavy amount for purchasing properties by
suppressing the fact that there was a charge of maintenance on the
properties in O.S. No.245 of 1968. He was a bona fide purchaser of
the property for value. Plaintiff prayed for a declaration that he was the
absolute owner of the scheduled properties, prayed for restoration of
possession and mesne profits also. A suit was filed with respect to survey    C
Nos.11 and 68/1 admeasuring 5 acres 39 guntas and 18 guntas
respectively.
       10. In the written statement filed by Siddagirigowda, defendant
No.1, it was contended that sale deed dated 9.11.1974 was a nominal
sale deed executed on collateral security and that sum of Rs.10,000/-         D
was borrowed from the plaintiff, Siddagirigowda denied execution of
settlement deed dated 5.1.1978 between him and wife Thopamma. There
was a charge on properties in O.S. No.245 of 1968 which was decreed
and possession of the land was never given to the plaintiff.
       11. Thopamma, defendant No.2 in her written statement denied           E
plaint averment and contended that scheduled property belonged to the
joint family of Siddagirigowda, denied the execution of settlement deed
dated 5.1.1978 and that it was not binding on her. She did not claim any
right in the suit schedule property under the said settlement deed. It was
contended that maintenance suit O.S. No.245 of 1968 was decreed and
there was a charge on the properties. The plaintiff was a friend and an       F
associate of her husband who was fully aware of the maintenance suit
and to defeat the maintenance claim, plaintiff and her husband in collusion
orchestrated a nominal and fictitious sale deed dated 9.11.1974. The
said sale deed was executed during the pendency of the lis and was hit
by section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short ‘TP Act’).     G
She had purchased the property through court auction in execution. Other
averments made in the plaint were also denied. On 19.10.1981 a
compromise petition was filed between the plaintiff and Siddagirigowda,
defendant No.1 wherein defendant No.1 sought withdrawal of the case
set up against the plaintiff in the written statement.
                                                                              H
466            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A           12. Defendant No.2, Thopamma, amended her written statement
      on 5.3.1987 contending that the plaintiff was not an agriculturist. He
      was a businessman dealing in cloth business, gold and silver jewellery.
      Thus, he was not entitled to purchase agricultural land vide sale deed
      dated 9.11.1974.
B           13. Thereafter, plaint was amended to set up the plea of the bona
      fide purchaser for value which fact was denied by Thopamma in her
      additional written statement. The plaintiff had the knowledge of the
      pendency of maintenance suit of 1968.
              14. On 23.6.1995, defendant No.1 took a somersault and filed a
C     counterclaim that sale deed was nominal and fictitious and he was ready
      to get the reconveyance deed executed. The plaintiff filed objections to
      the counterclaim that it was not maintainable, barred by limitation and
      plaintiff was not entitled after entering into a compromise, to file a
      counterclaim.
D            15. On 7.11.1996, Thopamma executed a registered deed of sale
      for a consideration of Rs.2,20,000/- in favour of Siddagangaiah, defendant
      No.3. Defendant No.1 died on 25.10.1998. Thereafter, Thopamma also
      died on 17.2.2000.
              16. The purchaser Siddagangaiah, impleaded defendant No.3 filed
E     a written statement in O.S. No.85 of 1989 contending that he was a
      bona fide purchaser for value. Thopamma had purchased the properties
      in the auction dated 5.10.1977. Sale certificate was issued and possession
      handed over on 29.1.1979. The application under section 47 read with
      Order XXI Rule 90 filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Plaintiff had not
      challenged the auction sale held by the court in favour of Thopamma.
F     Plaintiff was well aware of rejection of his application under Order XXI
      Rule 90. He did not file an appeal against the said dismissal order and
      filed a suit suppressing the fact, same was not maintainable.
             17. The trial court by judgment and decree dated 5.1.2007
      dismissed the suit. It was held that the plaintiff was not the absolute
G     owner of the properties and the application under Order XXI Rule 90
      read with section 47 was dismissed. That order remained unchallenged.
      The pleadings in plaint were silent with regard to the said application
      filed as well as its dismissal, besides the adjacent owners were not
      examined. Auction sale by Court was not questioned in the plaint. The
H
 SIDDAGANGAIAH (D) THR. LRS. v. N.K. GIRIRAJA SHETTY                            467
          (D) THR. LRS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

sale was hit by section 52 of the TP Act and the suit was barred by res         A
judicata. The plaintiff preferred an appeal being R.A. No.123 of 2009
in the first appellate court. The appeal had been allowed vide judgment
and decree dated 4.11.2011. The first appellate court held that lis pendens
was not applicable. There was confirmation of sale and charge was
created by fraud and collusion. The application under Order XXI Rule
                                                                                B
90 was dismissed in default of appearance and not on merits by a
speaking order. Against the decision of the first appellate court, a regular
second appeal was filed and the same was dismissed vide judgment and
order dated 18.12.2014, hence the present appeal.
       18. Shri Raju Ram Chandran, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants, urged that the suit was hit by the principle of    C
res judicata in view of the dismissal of the application under Order XXI
Rule 90 CPC read with section 47 CPC, it could not be said to be
maintainable. The application was dismissed on 31.3.1978 in default of
appearance. The auction sale held by the court had remained
unchallenged. It has attained finality. Separate suit for declaration and       D
possession could not be said to be maintainable.
       19. It was also urged that the decree in favour of defendant No.2,
Thopamma attained finality and the dismissal of the application under
Order XXI Rule 90 operates as a bar on entertainment of the suit. The
plaintiff did not come to the court with clean hands and had suppressed         E
the material fact of dismissal of the application and auction held by the
court. It was however urged that the sale in 1974 was hit by lis pendens.
The property was purchased in 1974 whereas the suit was filed in 1968
by defendant No.2 regarding maintenance and for the creation of the
charge on the schedule properties. The sale was clearly subject to the
provisions contained in section 52 of the TP Act. Lis commenced from            F
the date of presentation of the plaint. The plaintiff could not be said to be
a bona fide purchaser without notice. He was aware of the suit being a
friend of the husband of Thopamma and had also filed an application
under Order XXI Rule 90. Possession was not handed over to him under
the so-called sale deed. The High Court erred in holding that the charge        G
was created on the date of the decree in the suit i.e., O.S. No.245 of
1968. The High Court has not correctly interpreted the provisions of the
Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, “the Act”) nor the
provisions of the TP Act have been appropriately considered.

                                                                                H
468            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A            20. Shri S.S. Nagananda, learned senior counsel appearing on
      behalf of respondents, contended that the charge was created only on
      the date of the decree in O.S. No.245 of 1968 on 24.6.1976. There was
      no charge on the date of execution of sale deed in 1974. Having regard
      to sections 39 and 100 of the TP Act as the plaintiff was a bona fide
      purchaser, the charge could not have been enforced against the properties
B
      held by him. The absolute title was conveyed.
              21. Learned senior counsel has also relied upon sections 27 and
      28 of the Act so as to contend that it is only a decree which creates a
      charge that too not against a bona fide purchaser. It was not open to
      Thopamma to question the sale deed executed by the plaintiff. It was
C     further contended that the court held an auction on 5.10.1977 and
      confirmed it on 31.3.1978 in a mechanical manner without a speaking
      order, ignoring the sale deed dated 9.11.1974, decree holder was bound
      to disclose to the executing court the factum of execution of sale deed.
      The husband and wife had acted in collusion and fraudulently in order to
D     defeat the right of the bona fide purchaser for consideration. The decree-
      holder Smt. Thopamma had selectively chosen four items of the suit
      property which included even the subject property purchased by the
      plaintiff on 9.11.1974. As the sale was never questioned it was binding.
      The dismissal of the suit by the trial court was illegal. The application
      was dismissed under Order XXI Rule 90 in default. There was no
E     adjudication of same on merits. Thus, Smt. Thopamma failed to prove
      that she got a valid title to the property under the court auction dated
      5.10.1977 and confirmation of sale. Judgment debtor, husband had
      challenged the decree in maintenance case of 1968 in appeal and stay
      was granted subject to deposit of Rs.5,000/- which was not deposited.
F     Thus, auction so held could not be said to be valid. No fresh sale
      proclamation was issued for holding an auction sale on 5.10.1977, it was
      necessary to obtain fresh sale orders from the court. The sale was void.
      As Siddagirigowda had no saleable interest in the property for which
      auction was held by the court, non-compliance with the mandatory
      procedure can be considered by the court suo-moto as held in Nani
G     Gopal Paul v. T. Prasad Singh & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 579. The court
      cannot be a mute spectator in view of the manifest illegality committed
      while conducting the court sale. There are concurrent findings by the
      first appellate court and High Court that the sale made in the execution
      was fraudulent and collusive. No case for interference in the findings of
H
 SIDDAGANGAIAH (D) THR. LRS. v. N.K. GIRIRAJA SHETTY                            469
          (D) THR. LRS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

fact is made out. Husband of the decree-holder had withdrawn the                A
application under Order XXI Rule 90 on 31.3.1978. There were no other
bidders except Thopamma. The application under Order XXI Rule 90
filed by the plaintiff was dismissed for non-prosecution. The order was
not on merits. Thus, there was no bar on entertainment of the suit. The
claim of the appellant was false as the husband of decree-holder
                                                                                B
Thopamma had filed a declaration in Form 7 claiming to be a tenant
under N.K. Giriraja Shetty which claim was rejected vide order dated
24.8.1981 by the Land Tribunal. It was held that there was no tenancy
and he had sold the property to N.K. Giriraja Shetty. Defendant No.1
husband of Thopamma had filed a compromise petition in favour of N.K.
Giriraja Shetty and later on filed a counterclaim that abated due to death      C
of Siddagirigowda and of his wife Thopamma, and none appeared to
prosecute the same. Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for
short, “the Evidence Act”) had also been relied upon to contend that
after parting with the interest, no admission could have been made, and
there was non-compliance of Order XXI Rule 66 CPC, and filing of
                                                                                D
application order under Rule 90 CPC by plaintiff would not constitute
admission of irregularities and they were not cured. The plaintiff was
entitled to the decree that has been rightly granted. No case for
interference was made out in the appeal.
       22. The first question for consideration is whether owing to the
dismissal of the application filed under Order XXI Rule 90 by the plaintiff,    E
the present suit could be said to be maintainable. The fact is not in dispute
that after the court has held the auction, an application under Order XXI
Rule 90 was filed by the plaintiff, it was dismissed in default of appearance
on 31.3.1978. Order XXI Rule 90 CPC is extracted hereunder:
      “[R. 90. Application to set aside sale on ground of irregularity          F
      or fraud.—
      (1) Where any immovable property has been sold in execution of
      a decree, the decree-holder, or the purchaser, or any other person
      entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose
      interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Court to set         G
      aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in
      publishing or conducting it.
      (2) No sale shall be set aside on the ground of irregularity or fraud
      in publishing or conducting it unless, upon the facts proved, the
                                                                                H
470             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A             Court is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury
              by reason of such irregularity or fraud.
              (3) No application to set aside a sale under this rule shall be
              entertained upon any ground which the applicant could have taken
              on or before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn
B             up.
              Explanation-The mere absence of or defect in, attachment of
              the property sold shall not, by itself, be a ground for setting aside
              a sale under this rule.]”
              23. Sub-rule (1) of Order XXI Rule 90 makes it clear that when
C     any immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, the
      decree-holder or the purchaser or any other person entitled to share in a
      ratable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale,
      may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material
      irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it. As provided in sub-
      rule (2) of Rule 90 of Order XXI merely on the ground of irregularity or
D     fraud, the sale shall not be set aside unless the substantial injury has
      been caused to the objector by reason of such irregularity or fraud and
      such an objection should be the one which could not have been raised
      before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn up as
      provided in Order XXI Rule 90 sub-rule (3) and mere defect or absence
E     of attachment of the property shall not be a ground for setting aside a
      sale. It is necessary to prove the substantial injury where fraud or material
      irregularity has taken place whereby injustice had been suffered. It was
      held by this Court in Rajender Singh v. Ramdhar Singh& Ors., AIR
      2001 SC 2220 that mere inadequacy of price is not a ground for setting
      aside court sale. In the present case, the application under Order XXI
F     Rule 90 was filed by original plaintiff which was dismissed for default in
      appearance. It was nonetheless dismissal of the application so filed. It
      was not a case set up that the decree passed in maintenance case was
      obtained by fraud and substantial injury thereby has been caused.
              24. Where an application has been filed under Rule 90 Order XXI
G     CPC to set aside a sale on the ground of material irregularity, and the
      sale is confirmed under Rule 92(1) of Order XXI, the objector is precluded
      by virtue of the provisions under Order XXI Rule 92(3) from bringing a
      suit to set aside the sale on the same grounds as held in Brahayya v.
      Appayya, (1921) 44 Mad. 351 = 62 IC 203 = AIR 21 Mad. 121, Ma
      Saw v. Maung Kyaw, AIR 28 Rang 18; Nand Kishore v. Sultan, AIR
H     1926 Lah 165.
 SIDDAGANGAIAH (D) THR. LRS. v. N.K. GIRIRAJA SHETTY                             471
          (D) THR. LRS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

       25. When the auction purchaser is the decree-holder himself and           A
when an application is made to set aside the sale on a ground other than
that covered by Rule 90 and no application has been made under Rule
89, the case would fall under section 47 as has been laid down in Superior
Bank Ltd. v. Budh Singh, (1924) 22 All LJ 413; Akshia v.
Govindarajulu (1924) 47 MLJ 549. Thus, it would depend upon the
                                                                                 B
grounds which are urged in the application. It is permissible to join a
claim to set aside a sale on the ground of material irregularity under
Order XXI, Rule 90 with a claim under section 47 for a declaration that
the sale is a nullity as the decree was passed after the death of the
judgment-debtor. Objection by legal representatives of deceased
judgment-debtor that suit land was ancestral property and sale was not           C
binding on them can be raised under section 47 read with Order XXI
Rule 90. However, it would depend upon the nature of the objection
whether it was covered under Rule 90 of Order XXI CPC or not. There
can be restoration of the petition dismissed for default filed under Order
XXI Rule 90 and thereafter if sale has been confirmed, it is provided
                                                                                 D
under Order XXI Rule 92(3) that no suit to set aside an order made
under Rule 92(1) shall be brought by any person against whom such an
order is made. Order XXI Rule 92(1) provides that where an application
has been filed under Order XXI Rule 89, 90 or 91, same has been
disallowed, the court shall make an order confirming the sale and
thereupon the sale shall become absolute, and no suit shall lie as per the       E
mandate of sub-rule (3) of Rule 92 of Order XXI CPC against whom
such an order is made. The order confirming the sale may be made
either where no application is made at all to set aside the sale or where
an application is made and disallowed may be that it is dismissed for
default. No suit shall lie in either case to set aside the order confirming
                                                                                 F
the sale. The refusal to set aside a sale is an order appealable. In case
the court has set aside or refused to set aside a sale that would include
a case where an application under Order XXI Rule 89, 90 or 91 has
been dismissed for default.
       26. In the instant case admittedly an application was filed by original
plaintiff under OrderXXI, Rule 90 read with section 47, on the ground            G
that he was the owner of the land in question purchased by a sale deed
dated 9.11.1974 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and was placed in possession.
He was not aware of the court sale. There was no beat of drums before
the auction was held. He was not aware of the execution proceedings.
                                                                                 H
472             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A     He was a purchaser for value. The property was not correctly valued.
      There were material irregularities in the conduct of the sale. Hardship
      would be caused in case auction was confirmed. Thus, prayer was made
      to set aside the auction sale. The aforesaid application had been
      dismissed. Thus, Order XXI Rule 92(3) would operate as a bar for the
      entertainment of the fresh suit on the ground so urged.
B
              27. The plaintiff has totally suppressed the factum of court auction
      sale and confirmation in the plaint and did not make any averment that
      he had filed an application under Order XXI Rule 90(1) and it was
      dismissed on 31.3.1978 whereas the suit was filed on 19.4.1978 after 19
      days of the dismissal of the objection and confirmation of the sale. The
C     plaintiff has not questioned the auction so held by the court on the ground
      of fraud or any material irregularity. He has claimed himself to be a
      bona fide purchaser. That plea was also raised in the application filed
      under Order XXI Rule 90. Dismissal of the same would preclude him to
      file a fresh suit, it was incumbent upon him to question the court auction
D     on any permissible grounds necessary for the entertainment of fresh suit
      but that has not been done. The grounds which were covered under
      Order XXI Rule 90 cannot be raised in the instant matter. There is no
      pleading of fraud or collusion raised in the plaint. Thus, the first appellate
      court and High Court both have travelled beyond the pleadings to give a
      finding that the auction sale was held fraudulently and in collusion. It is
E     provided in Order VI Rule 4 CPC that the plea of fraud, misrepresentation,
      and collusion has to specifically set out in the pleadings before any finding
      can be given on the same. There is no evidence on record for
      substantiating the plea which itself was not taken, it has neither been
      substantiated. Thus, the first appellate court and the High Court have
F     committed gross illegality by giving the finding with respect to fraud and
      collusion of the decree-holder and judgment debtor in the court auction
      so held.
             28. The auction purchase made by decree-holder Thopamma had
      attained finality. Confirmation of sale was not questioned by the plaintiff.
G     Thus, no relief could have been granted and the earlier orders have
      attained finality and operate as a bar for the entertainment of the fresh
      suit.
             29. Coming to the question of lis pendens, Smt. Thopamma had
      filed the suit in 1968 for the creation of charge of maintenance inter alia
H
SIDDAGANGAIAH (D) THR. LRS. v. N.K. GIRIRAJA SHETTY                            473
         (D) THR. LRS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

on the properties in question. Explanation to Section 52 of the TP Act         A
makes it clear that pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to
commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint. Thus, on the
date of execution of the sale deed on 9.11.1974, the suit filed by
Thopamma was pending. Thus, the provisions contained in section 52
would clearly apply to the case. In Nagubai Ammal & Ors. v. B. Shama
                                                                               B
Rao & Ors. AIR 1956 SC 593 this Court observed:
        “9. On this question, as the plaint in O. S. No. 100 of 1919-20
      praying for a charge was presented on 6-6-1919, the sale to Dr.
      Nanjunda Rao subsequent thereto on 30-1-1920 would prima facie
      fall within the mischief of section 52 of the Transfer of Property
      Act, and would be hit by the purchase by Devamma on 2-8-1928             C
      in the execution of the charge decree.
          Sri K. S. Krishnaswami Ayyangar, learned counsel for the
      appellants, did not press before us the contention urged by them
      in the courts below that when a plaint is presented in forma pauperis
      the lis commences only after it is admitted and registered as a          D
      suit, which was in this case on 17-6-1920, subsequent to the sale
      under Exhibit VI - a contention directly opposed to the plain
      language of the Explanation to section 52. And he also conceded
      and quite rightly, that when a suit is filed for maintenance and
      there is a prayer that it be charged on specified properties, it is a    E
      suit in which right to immovable property is directly in question,
      and the lis commences on the date of the plaint and not on the
      date of the decree, which creates the charge.
          But he contends that the decision of the courts below that the
      sale deed dated 30-1-1920 is hit by section 52 is bad on the following
                                                                               F
      three grounds : (1) The question of lis pendens was not raised in
      the pleadings, and is not open to the plaintiff. (2) The suit for
      maintenance, O. S. No. 100 of 1919-20 and the sale in execution
      of the decree passed therein are all collusive, and section 52 has
      accordingly no application. (3) The purchase by Devamma in
      execution of the decree in O. S. No. 100 of 1919-20 on 2-8-1928          G
      is void and inoperative, as the Official Receiver in whom the estate
      of Keshavananda had vested on 19-2-1926 was not a party to the
      sale proceedings. These contentions must now be considered.”
                                                         (emphasis is ours)
                                                                               H
474             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A            30. About lis pendens, this Court has held that concession was
      rightly made, thereafter laid down the legal proposition. The sale was
      clearly subject to the provisions contained in section 52 of the TP Act.
              31. On behalf of the respondents, reliance has been placed on the
      provisions of section 39 of the TP Act which deals with transfer where
B     a third person is entitled to maintenance. It provides if such property is
      transferred the right may be enforced against the transferee who has
      notice thereof or if the transfer is gratuitous but not against a transferee
      for consideration and without notice of the right. Section 39 clearly makes
      out that charge of maintenance can be enforced against the immovable
      property held by a transferee. In the instant case, the transferee was not
C     put in possession of the property is apparent from the plaint and possession
      of defendant No.1 continued. The sale also does not appear to be bona
      fide. It was clear with the intent to defeat the claim of the wife for
      maintenance that is why possession had not been handed over. The
      case of the plaintiff that though sale deed was executed in 1974, defendant
D     No.1 again took forcible possession in 1976, is not worthy of acceptance.
      Apart from that it is not so pleaded in the application under Order XXI
      Rule 90 that he was not aware of the pendency of the suit at the time of
      execution of the sale deed on 9.11.1974. He was a close friend of
      defendant No.1 and was obviously aware of the factum of litigation
      pending since 1968. Thus, he could not be said to be a bona fide purchaser
E     at all. Apart from that, the application under Order XXI Rule 90 read
      with section 47 CPC containing the said plea stood dismissed.
            32. Reliance has also been placed on the provisions contained in
      section 100 of TP Act which cannot be said to be applicable. Section
      100 provides that property of one person by operation of law is made the
F     security of money for payment to another. Latter person is said to have
      a charge on the property. However, no charge shall be in the hands to
      whom such property has been transferred for consideration and without
      notice. As already held, N.K.Giriraja Shetty could not be said to be a
      bona fide purchaser. Besides that, it was clearly subject to the provisions
G     contained in section 52 of the TP Act. Apart from that the objection
      under Order XXI Rule 90 stood dismissed. Thus, he was aware of the
      auction sale and its confirmation which he ought to have questioned.
            33. Reliance has also been placed on section 27 of the Act so as
      to contend that maintenance under the Act shall not be a charge on the
H
 SIDDAGANGAIAH (D) THR. LRS. v. N.K. GIRIRAJA SHETTY                          475
          (D) THR. LRS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

estate of the deceased or any portion thereof unless that has been created    A
by the will of the deceased or by the decree of the court by an agreement
between the defendant and the owner of the estate or any portion
otherwise. It is not the case of creation of charge on the estate of the
deceased. Thus, the provision is not applicable. Section 27 is extracted
hereunder:
                                                                              B
      “27. Maintenance when to be a charge.—A dependant’s claim
      for maintenance under this Act shall not be a charge on the estate
      of the deceased or any portion thereof, unless one has been created
      by the will of the deceased, by a decree of court, by agreement
      between the dependant and the owner of the estate or portion, or
      otherwise.”                                                             C

      34. Section 28 of the Act has been relied on, it provides that where
a dependant has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and
such estate or any part is transferred, right to receive maintenance may
be enforced against a transferee. However, such transferee should not
be a bona fide transferee for consideration and without notice and it         D
cannot be enforced against the transferee for consideration without notice.
The provision is of no help in view of findings recorded.
       35. Reliance has been placed on Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib
Narike & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 75 in which this Court has laid down that
provision of section 39 of the TP Act is akin to the provisions contained     E
in section 28 of the Act. However, no sustenance can be drawn from
the aforesaid decision in the facts of the present case.
       36. It was also contended that the court sale was mechanically
made and confirmed without speaking order and without compliance
with the mandatory provisions of Order XXI Rule 66. No such ground            F
has been taken in the plaint as such and in the absence of evidence, it
cannot be examined. Sale and its confirmation itself has not been
questioned on any ground whatsoever. There is total suppression with
respect to sale and delivery of possession to defendant No.2. The original
plaintiff did not come to the Court with clean hands and was guilty of        G
suppressio veri.
       37. It was also contended that this Court can suomoto take notice
of the illegalities as held by this Court in Nani Gopal Paul v. T. Prasad
Singh & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 579. It was contended that when non-
                                                                              H
476            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A     compliance with the mandatory procedure was there, this Court would
      not remain a mute and helpless spectator and has to undo manifest
      illegality committed while conducting the court sale fraudulently. There
      is no dispute with the proposition. However, in the instant case, there is
      no challenge to the auction proceedings on any ground good, bad or
      otherwise. In the absence of evidence and suppression of facts, it cannot
B
      be examined.
            38. Once the auction has not been questioned and there is a bar
      created by Order XXI Rule 92(3), all these questions cannot be agitated
      or urged. Plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands as such he
      could not be said to be entitled to any relief on the grounds so urged.
C
              39. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of this Court in
      Lal Chand v. VIIIth Addl. District Judge & Ors. (1997) 4 SCC 356
      contending that auction sale on 5.10.1977 was irregular and void ab
      initio, smacking of collusion and fraud between husband and wife. Though
      the interim order of the Court filed in the appeal has also been relied
D     upon due to its non-compliance of deposit of Rs.5,000/-, the property
      could have been sold in the auction. The sale could not be said to be
      fraudulent, collusive or ab initio void. Being a purchaser lis pendens, it
      was not necessary to issue any notice and N.K.Giriraja Shetty was aware
      of the suit and the charge and of sale, he filed objections under Order
E     XXI Rule 90 CPC and failed to prosecute the same.In Lal Chand (supra)
      this Court has laid down that the provisions of Order XXI Rule 72 are
      mandatory and no decree-holder has any right to bid in the auction without
      permission of the court. However, in the instant case permission had
      been granted and set off against the decretal amount of maintenance
      was made in the auction. The amount of Rs.11,600 was due which was
F     a huge amount at the relevant time. It was not the case set up that the
      sale was not notified in accordance with law as per the provisions
      contained in Order XXI Rules 66 and 67 CPC.
             40. Reliance has also been placed on section 18 of the Evidence
      Act. In the instant case, there is no admission after parting with the
G     interest made in the execution proceedings inter se husband and wife.
      The auction was held by the court in accordance with law. It was not
      the case set up that the decree passed in the maintenance suit was
      based upon fraud or a collusive one. Nor was such a case so set up with
      respect to the auction of the properties in the execution of the decree.
H
 SIDDAGANGAIAH (D) THR. LRS. v. N.K. GIRIRAJA SHETTY                         477
          (D) THR. LRS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

On the contrary, the husband had preferred an appeal against the             A
judgment and decree passed in the maintenance case, which was
dismissed on merits. Section 18 of the Evidence Act states :
      “18. Admission by party to proceeding or his agent.—Statements
      made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such
      party, whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the          B
      case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make them,
      are admissions.
         by suitor in representative character.—Statements made by
      parties to suits, suing or sued in a representative character, are
      not admissions, unless they were made while the party making           C
      them held that character.
         Statements made by—
      (1) party interested in subject-matter..—persons who have any
      proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject-matter of the
      proceeding, and who make the statement in their character of           D
      persons so interested, or
      (2) person from whom interest derived..—persons from whom
      the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject-
      matter of the suit,
                                                                             E
        are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the
      interest of the persons making the statements.”
       Thus, after parting with the interest, no admission with respect to
the interest which has been parted away is admissible, the provision is
not attracted in the fact-situation of the instant case. The so-called
                                                                             F
settlement entered into between the husband and wife on 5.8.1978 has
not been pressed into service by either and has been disowned by the
husband and wife both. They set up a case that no such settlement had
been entered into nor any claim had been made by them on the basis
thereof. Had that been the case, the provisions of section 18 of the
Evidence Act would have been attracted.                                      G
      41. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of this Court in
V.Swarajyalaxmi & Ors. v. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, AIR
2003 SC 2347 to raise the ground that on the date of the court sale
defendant No.1 was not having any saleable interest in the property.
                                                                             H
478              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A     Thus the sale itself was void and vitiated. The decision is not attracted
      as there was a charge on the property and purchase was made during
      lis pendens and was subject to the provisions contained in section 52.
      The transaction could not be said to be of bona fide purchase and
      pendency of the suit without notice. Apart from that objection filed
      regarding auction has been dismissed and auction has not been questioned
B
      in the suit. Thus, the plea set up has no legs to stand in the factual matrix
      of the case.
             42. It was also contended on behalf of the respondent that claim
      was made by defendant No.1 under the Land Reforms Act to be a
      tenant of N.K.Giriraja Shetty. The false claim that has been set up does
C     not carry the cause of the plaintiff as the auction was already held in
      1977 and stood confirmed in 1979. Further, by the filing of the
      counterclaim by defendant No.1 and its abatement is not going to serve
      any purpose of the plaintiff as plaintiff has to succeed on the strength of
      his own title in the case to recover possession. Merely because defendant
D     No.1 filed a counterclaim that conveyance was nominal and fictitious
      and it was a transaction of loan, the dismissal of the same does not carry
      the case of the plaintiff any further. As the property was subject to court
      auction that was not questioned by him. Thus, he has lost the right, title
      and interest in the property, if any.
E            43. Resultantly, we find the judgment and decree passed by the
      trial court to be appropriate. It has been illegally set aside by the first
      appellate court. The High Court has also erred in dismissing the second
      appeal on the impermissible grounds. Thus, the judgment and decree
      passed by the first appellate court, as affirmed by the High Court, deserves
      to be and are hereby set aside, and the suit of the plaintiff is ordered to
F     be dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court are
      restored. The appeal is allowed in these terms. In the facts and
      circumstances of the case, parties to bear their respective costs, as
      incurred.

G
      Devika Gujral                                                  Appeal allowed.




H