SRI R RAGHUversusSRI G M KRISHNA & ANR.

                [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2086 : 2025 INSC 1040

                              Sri R Raghu
                                    v.
                         Sri G M Krishna & Anr.
                      (Civil Appeal No. 8544 of 2024)
                               25 August 2025
            [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       The appellant has preferred Civil Appeal No.8544 of 2024 aggrieved
       by the two directions given by the High Court in the impugned
       order relating to additional payment of Rs.25 lakhs per acre to the
       respondent as additional sale price and secondly, the direction to
       the District Court to conduct the survey of the auction property
       measuring 5 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.67 and to fix its boundaries.

                                  Headnotes†
       State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 – Karnataka Land
       Reforms Act, 1961 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – The
       respondent was the Managing Director of a company that had
       borrowed money from respondent no.2 KFSC – Due to defaults
       in repayment, KSFC initiated recovery proceedings and was
       granted a decree against the Company – Subsequently, KSFC
       filed Execution Petition – As part of this process, agricultural
       land measuring 5.5 acres in Sy. No.67 of Agara Village,
       belonging to the respondent, was put to auction – The sale
       was finalised – However, VVMP, a Trust, filed an application for
       the issuance of a sale certificate in the execution petition and
       application was sworn by the appellant – Sale certificate was
       issued in the appellant’s favour as a Trustee of VVMP – It led
       to various rounds of litigation with main contention that the
       appellant had participated in the auction as a Trustee rather
       than an individual agriculturist – In the impugned judgment,
       the High Court has upheld the auction sale of Sy. No.67 but
       directed the appellant to pay an additional Rs.25,00,000/- per
       acre to respondent – The District Court was also directed to
       once again survey the Sy. No.67, rectifying its boundaries,
       if necessary, while maintaining status quo until then –
       Correctness:

* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                                2087

                    Sri R Raghu v. Sri G M Krishna & Anr.


     Held: 1. The High Court has carefully considered the long-drawn
     litigation, involving several rounds inter se the parties, as well
     as the various contentions raised and the conduct of the parties
     throughout – The Single Judge has rendered a just and equitable
     judgment by taking into account both the mitigating and aggravating
     aspects of their conduct – This Court finds that the Single Judge
     has dealt with each and every argument methodically and in the
     true spirit of law and justice. [Para 7]
     2. The fact remains that the appellant, auction purchaser had
     purchased Sy.No.67 comprising of three parts with total area of
     5 acres and 20 guntas (5-1/2 acres) – Once the area had been
     specified of the three parts being (a) 1 acre 24 guntas (b) 36 guntas
     and (c) 3 acres, totalling 5 acres and 20 guntas (5-1/2 acres), the
     appellant would not be entitled to hold possession of any more
     area than what was purchased in the auction and as mentioned in
     the sale certificate – Further, the issue relating to the identification
     and measurement is concerned, there is no justification to interfere
     with the direction of the High Court to get the survey carried out
     for specific measurements of the purchased property – Insofar as
     the direction for payment of Rs.25 lakhs per acre as additional
     sale consideration to the respondent is concerned, this Court does
     not wish to interfere with the same, considering the conduct of the
     appellant, whose dual role casts doubt on the entire proceedings
     [Paras 9-11]

                                  List of Acts
     State Financial Corporation Act, 1951; Karnataka Land Reforms
     Act, 1961; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

                              List of Keywords
     Borrowed money; Defaults in payments; Recovery proceedings;
     Execution petition; Auction sale; Sale certificate; Participation
     in auction as trustee; Measurement of land; Rectification of
     boundaries; Additional sale consideration.

                             Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8544 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 17.08.2023 of the High Court
     of Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRP No. 539 of 2015
2088                                                           [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


      With
      Civil Appeal No. 8545 of 2024 and Contempt Petition (Civil) No.
      657 of 2024 in Civil Appeal No. 8544 of 2024

                          Appearances for Parties
      Advs. for the Appellant:
      Gopal Sankaranarayan, Sonakshi Malhan, Siddharth Bhatnagar,
      Nikhil M Sakhardande, Sr. Advs., Sajal Jain, Ms. Aditi Gupta,
      Ms. Trisha C, Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, Ashish Venugopal, Nipun
      Katyal, Ms. Shubhra Swami, Nadeem Afroz, Nishchay Johri,
      Dhananjay Kumar, Aditya Sidhra, Meghraj Singh, Shashank
      Shekhar.
      Advs. for the Respondents:
      Gopal Sankaranarayan, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Nikhil M Sakhardande,
      Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Advs., Sajal Jain, Ms. Aditi Gupta, Ms. Trisha C,
      Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, Ashish Venugopal, Nipun Katyal, Nadeem
      Afroz, Ms. Shubhra Swami, Nishchay Johri, Dhananjay Kumar,
      Aditya Sidhra, Meghraj Singh, Shashank Shekhar, S.J. Amith,
      Ms. Vidushi Garg, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Judgment

      Vikram Nath, J.

1.    The present appeals arise from the impugned order dated 17.08.2023,
      passed by the High Court of Karnataka in C.R.P. No. 539/2015. The
      petitioner before the High Court was R. Raghu, while the respondents
      were G.M. Krishna and Karnataka State Financial Corporation1.
      Before this Court, appeals have been filed by both R. Raghu and
      G.M. Krishna, along with a contempt petition filed by G.M. Krishna. R.
      Raghu has filed Civil Appeal No. 8544 of 2024 whereas G.M. Krishna
      has filed Civil Appeal No.8545 of 2024. The contempt petition has
      been heard alongside the appeals. For convenience, the parties will
      be referred to based on their positions in Civil Appeal No. 8544 of
      2024 i.e. R. Raghu as appellant and G.M. Krishna as respondent.


1    KSFC
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                         2089

                    Sri R Raghu v. Sri G M Krishna & Anr.


2.    The facts giving rise to the dispute are that the respondent was the
      Managing Director of Hoysala Thermo Farmers Pvt. Ltd.2 that had
      borrowed money from respondent no.2 KFSC, with the respondent
      acting as a guarantor. Due to defaults in repayment, KSFC initiated
      recovery proceedings before the Principal District Judge, Rural District,
      Bangalore and was granted a decree for Rs. 2,61,28,017.57paise
      against the Company in Misc. No. 52/1996 vide judgment and decree
      dated 15.11.1999.
      2.1 Subsequently, KSFC filed Execution Petition No. 33/2000
          before the Principal District Judge, Rural District, Bangalore,
          to enforce the decree in Misc. No. 52/1996. As part of this
          process, agricultural land measuring 5.5 acres in Sy. No. 67 of
          Agara Village, belonging to the respondent, was put to auction.
          On 10.04.2000, KSFC filed an application under Order XXI
          Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19083 to restrain the
          respondent from encumbering the property and also to attach
          it. The Executing Court allowed the application and directed
          the attachment of the land. However, when the Court bailiff and
          a KSFC official attempted to identify the property, they were
          unsuccessful, leading to the return of the attachment warrant.
      2.2 KSFC then filed an application on 01.07.2000 under Section
          32(8) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 19514, to appoint
          a Cadastral Surveyor to demarcate the land. This application
          remained pending before the Executing Court.
      2.3 Meanwhile, the Executing Court ordered the sale of Sy. No. 67.
          A sale on the spot was conducted, where the appellant placed
          the highest bid of Rs. 15,50,000/-. The Court, however, deemed
          this amount to be inadequate given the land’s potential and
          conducted a Court auction on 19.04.2003. The appellant was
          the sole bidder and increased his bid by Rs. 3,00,000/-, bringing
          the final price to Rs. 18,50,000/- which was accepted. The
          appellant subsequently deposited this amount.
      2.4 Ved Vignam Maha Vidya Peeth (VVMP), a Trust, filed an
          application for the issuance of a sale certificate in the execution


2    the Company
3    CPC
4    The 1951 Act
2090                                                            [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


             petition. The application was sworn by the appellant, as a
             Trustee, claiming that the Trust had purchased the land. The
             auction was confirmed on 27.08.2005, and a sale certificate
             was issued in the appellant’s favour as a Trustee of VVMP on
             09.09.2005.

     1st Set of litigation:
     2.5 The respondent then filed an application being I.A. No. IV under
         Order XXI Rule 90 CPC, read with Section 47 thereof, seeking
         to set aside the sale. He contended that the appellant had
         participated in the auction as a Trustee rather than an individual
         agriculturist, which violated the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
         19615. The Executing Court dismissed the said application on
         16.01.2006 on the ground of delay. The operative part of the
         aforesaid order as contained in paragraph 18 is reproduced
         hereunder:
                    “Thus, as already discussed supra, as I.A. No.IV is
                    barred by limitation, the value of the property was
                    made as it stood as on the date of auction, namely on
                    19.4.2003, as the auction purchaser is an individual
                    and not a trust, as the sale deed is also issued in
                    favour of the individual, as I.A. No.IV falls within the
                    provision of under order 90 rule 3 of CPC and the
                    explanation there under, as the amount is deposited
                    within time; as the property to an extent of 1 acre 24
                    guntas never vested with the Government and even
                    if vested, the forum
                    or seeking its remedy to the Govermnent is not before
                    this executing court and as the auction purchaser
                    has made out his right to the farm house situate in
                    the land purchased by him, I.A. No. IV and VIII are
                    liable to be dismissed, while I.A. No. VII is entitled
                    to be allowed.”
     2.6 The above decision was later upheld by the High Court in MFA
         No. 7981/2006 vide order dated 18.04.2007. The High Court’s
         findings as held in paragraph 21 is as follows:


5   The 1961 Act.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                            2091

                    Sri R Raghu v. Sri G M Krishna & Anr.


                “The KSFC and the JDR have filed Writ Petitions
                challenging the validity of the Court auction in favour
                of the auction purchaser. The JDR had also filed an
                application under Order XXI 1 Rule 90 of CPC to set
                aside the sale. The said application is filed almost two
                years three months after the Court sale. Obviously,
                the application is not filed within the limitation period
                of sixty days. The JDR explains that he was out of
                India and hence, he could not file the application in
                time. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation
                Act does not apply to the proceedings under Order
                XXI. Therefore, whether or not the JDR had sufficient
                cause, the application filed for setting aside the sale
                is barred by time and cannot be entertained.”
     2.7    Respondent’s SLP (C) Nos. 15832-15834/2007 before this
            Court was dismissed on 14.09.2007 in limine.

     2nd Set of litigation:
     2.8    The respondent who owned adjacent survey numbers (70/1st
            Block, 71/2A, and 179 in Agara Village), commissioned a
            survey, on the ground that the boundaries mentioned in the
            sale certificate issued by the Executing Court comprised of
            not only Sy.No.67 that was sold in execution but also other
            survey numbers namely Sy.No.71/2A, 179 that were not sold
            in the execution.
     2.9    Respondent executed a gift deed dated 28.01.2006 in favour
            of his wife Smt. Arathi Krishna transferring the title of this
            aforesaid adjacent land. The Tahsildar thereafter issued a
            notice for carrying out a survey of the property on 13.02.2006.
     2.10 The appellant challenged this notice in W.P. No. 2173/2006.
          Additionally, on 22.05.2006, he filed O.S. No. 374/2005 (later
          renumbered as O.S. No. 1414/2006) seeking a declaration that
          the Gift Deed in favour of respondent’s wife was null and void.
     2.11 The High Court, vide order dated 09.04.2007, quashed the
          survey notice, holding that the appellant had legally acquired
          the land through a Court auction. However, the survey of other
          survey numbers remained open. The operative part of the
          order as contained in paragraph 20 is reproduced hereunder:
2092                                                     [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


              “Considering the facts and circumstances of the
              case and the decisions referred to by the counsel
              for the petitioner, which aptly applicable to the facts
              and circumstances of the case and therefore the writ
              petition is liable to be allowed and the Annexure G
              notice issued by the Taluka surveyor is liable to be
              quashed.”
    2.12 Respondent’s Writ Appeals (Nos. 1025/2007 and 3763/2007)
         challenging the above order were dismissed by the Division
         Bench, vide order dated 02.11.2012, which held that the survey
         notice of all properties is illegal as the adjacent property has
         been gifted by respondent to his wife and as he has no claim
         over auctioned property i.e. Sy.No.67. The relevant portion of
         the order as contained in paragraph 7 is reproduced hereunder:
              “From the aforesaid material on record it is clear
              that the land bearing Sy.No.67, 70/1, 70/2 and 179
              are all surveyed. An extent of 5 acres 20 guntas in
              Sy.No.67 is purchased by the petitioner in Court
              auction with specific boundaries and he has been
              put in possession. In so far as other survey numbers
              are concerned, the material on record-shows that 5th
              respondent has executed gift deed dated 28.01.2006
              in favour of Arati Krishna, bequeathing the land in
              Sy.No.70, 71/2 and 179 which was duly registered
              on 14.02.2006. Therefore, he has lost title to the said
              property. Therefore, prima facie, the 5th respondent
              has no title to-the property. Assuming that he has
              retained some property, his request should be to
              bifurcate the property which are purchased or property
              which he has alienated. That is not the request made
              in the application. He has requested for survey of all
              the properties, as if no survey is conducted so far.
              Such a request for the survey is not permissible.
              Therefore the learned Single Judge was justified in
              setting aside the said survey. If the 5th respondent
              accepts the purchase of the property by the petitioner,
              accepts the gift in favour of Arati Krishna, he must
              produce the certified copies of the said documents
              and then state, out of the property which properly he
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                         2093

                    Sri R Raghu v. Sri G M Krishna & Anr.


                has retained and then only he can seek for survey
                for the purpose of bifurcating the property and giving
                separate survey number to the property which he has
                retained or to the property which he has alienated.
                If such a request is made, then the authorities will
                conduct survey in accordance with law. The learned
                Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in
                so far as Sy.No.67 measuring 5 acres 20 guntas
                is concerned, which is the subject matter of Court
                auction in favour of petitioner is concerned, they
                have no claim whatsoever. Their claim is in respect
                of other survey numbers.”

     3rd Set of litigation:
     2.13 Nevertheless, the Tahsildar issued another survey notice on
          01.10.2014 at the behest of respondent’s wife, prompting the
          appellant to challenge it in W.P. No. 47527/2014. The High
          Court, vide interim order dated 09.10.2014, held that the
          survey could proceed for Sy. No. 71/2A but should not affect
          Sy. No. 67. The appellant further challenged this in Writ Appeal
          No. 2700/2014, where the Division Bench reaffirmed that the
          appellant’s ownership and possession over Sy. No. 67 should
          not be disturbed.

     4th Set of litigation:
     2.14 Despite this, a subsequent survey revealed that the boundaries
          in the sale certificate encompassed Sy. No. 71/2A in addition to
          Sy. No. 67. The Tahsildar, on 10.11.2014, ordered the appellant
          to return 4 acres and 37 gunthas of land to respondent and
          his wife within three days.
     2.15 The appellant challenged these developments by filing W.P.
          No. 54468/2014 against respondent and his wife, contesting
          the survey report, and further filed W.P. No. 52691/2014 against
          the Tahsildar’s order. The High Court, vide common order
          dated 03.02.2015, allowed the writ petitions and set aside
          impugned survey report and order passed by the Tehsildar.
          The respondents were given liberty to approach the Civil Court.
          The relevant portion of the aforesaid order as contained in
          paragraph 35 is reproduced hereunder:
2094                                                         [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


               “In the result and for the foregoing reasons, these writ
               petitions are allowed. The impugned survey report and
               the orders passed by Tahsildar are set aside. Liberty
               is reserved to the respondents to seek redressal of
               their grievance by approaching the Civil Court and
               in accordance with law.”
    2.16 Respondent and his wife filed W.A. Nos. 1094/2015 and
         1096/2015 which were dismissed by the Division Bench vide
         judgment dated 25.02.2021. It would be pertinent to mention
         that the State of Karnataka also filed an appeal bearing Writ
         Appeal No.2175 of 2015 assailing the order of the Single Judge,
         which was also dismissed by the same order dated 25.02.2021.
         The Division Bench examined the facts relating to previous
         litigation inter se parties and other related parties in great detail
         and passed strictures against the private parties as also the
         officials of the revenue department. Relevant paragraphs of
         the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereunder: -
               “25. The dispute involved in the writ petitions as well
               as in these appeals is between two individuals. The
               statutory authority has passed an order under the
               provisions of the Act, 1964. We are rather surprised
               to notice that the State Government has filed an
               appeal to justify the order passed by the Tahsildar.
               The contention that the order of the Tahsildar dated
               10.11.2014 is well within the jurisdiction, cannot be
               accepted. In any case, the dispute is between two
               individuals. The factum of filing of an application to the
               said authorities fortifies a conclusion that the revenue
               authorities have acted with due haste and the instant
               case is a case of colorable exercise of statutory
               power and therefore, the learned Single Judge has
               rightly quashed the order which has been passed by
               the Tahsildar. The present case reflects a very sorry
               state of affairs in which appellant No.2 after losing
               from Supreme Court has again re-agitated the matter.
               26. In the present case, the Corporation had initiated
               proceedings for recovery of the amount under
               Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act.
               The auction was held on 19.4.2003, sale certificate
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                          2095

                    Sri R Raghu v. Sri G M Krishna & Anr.


                was issued on 9.9.2005, it was affirmed by the
                Executing Court on 27.8.2005 and appellant No.2
                was unsuccessful up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
                The Trustee was placed in possession of the property
                in question, survey was carried out at the behest
                of the Trustee and after losing the battle up to the
                Hon’ble Supreme Court, mischievously a new route
                was adopted by appellant No.2 by executing the gift
                deed on 28.1.2006 in favour of his wife to keep the
                lis alive. The gift deed was registered on 14.2.2006
                and now it is the wife who has stepped into the shoes
                of appellant No.2. Such type of practice has to be
                deprecated. A person who has bought the property
                through an open auction in the year 2003 is still being
                subjected to litigation for no rhyme or reason and all
                kinds of legal jugglery have taken place in the present
                case to ensure that the Trustee is not able to make
                use of the property which he has purchased by way
                of open auction. The appellant No.2 in the garb of
                gift-deed cannot be permitted to set at naught the
                rights acquired by the Trustee in an auction, validity
                of which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme
                Court.
                27. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the
                considered opinion that the writ appeals are devoid
                of merits and do not have substance and deserves to
                be dismissed. It is needless to state that the Trustee
                shall be entitled to proceed with the use of the land
                in question in accordance with law.
                Writ appeals are dismissed. No orders as to costs.
                Pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.”

     5th Set of litigation:
     2.17 On 05.12.2014, respondent filed Misc. Petition No. 157/2014 in
          Execution Case No. 33/2000 under Section 47 CPC, seeking a
          declaration that the auction sale and sale certificate were null
          and void, on the ground that the appellant had misrepresented
          himself as an agriculturist while purchasing the property for a
          Trust, which was legally prohibited from holding agricultural
2096                                                      [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


          land. It was contended that, that the actual purchase was not
          made by the appellant but by the Trust and fraud has been
          played on the Court by propping up the appellant to purchase
          at the Court auction. The Trust was said to be prohibited from
          holding property in view of Sections 79A and 79C of the 1961
          Act. Further, it was contended that the records in the execution
          petition disclosed that the property to be auctioned was never
          identified and therefore, sale of such unidentified property was
          illegal. The appellant filed his statement of objections wherein
          he stated that the property was purchased by him as a Trustee.
    2.18 The Trial Court, in its judgment dated 28.09.2015, ruled
         in respondent’s favour, setting aside the auction sale and
         declaring it null and void. The Court found that the appellant
         had acted fraudulently by adopting inconsistent stances
         regarding his role in the purchase. The Trial Court also noted
         that Sections 79A, 79B and 79C of the 1961 Act bar a Trust
         from acquiring agricultural land. The operative part of the
         judgement as contained in paragraph 41 is as follows:
              “Therefore, considering all. these facts and
              circumstances of the case, I am of the clear opinion
              that the petitioner has made out valid grounds to
              set aside the sale declared on 19/04/2003 and sale
              certificate issued on 09/09/2005 in Ex.No.33/2000.
              It is necessary to conduct fresh auction proceedings
              KSFC has to recover the due amount against the
              Judgment Debtor. With the above discussion, I answer
              the Point No. 1 held in the affirmative and proceed to
              pass the following: The petition filed by the petitioner
              under Section 47 of CPC is hereby allowed.”
    2.19 The appellant challenged the aforesaid order dated 28.09.2015
         before the High Court by way of C.R.P. No. 539/2015.
    2.20 Notably, on 30.12.2020, Sections 79A, 79B, and 79C of
         the 1961 Act were retrospectively repealed with effect from
         01.03.1974.
    2.21 In the impugned judgment, the High Court partially allowed the
         appellant’s petition, affirming the finding of fraud against the
         appellant but modifying the Trial Court’s ruling to the extent of
         the setting aside of the auction sale dated 19.04.2003 and the
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                            2097

                    Sri R Raghu v. Sri G M Krishna & Anr.


            consequent confirmation of sale and the sale certificate dated
            09.09.2005 in respect of Sy.No.67. The High Court has upheld
            the auction sale of Sy. No. 67 but directed the appellant to pay
            an additional Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty five lakhs only)
            per acre to respondent. The District Court was also directed
            to once again survey the Sy. No. 67, rectifying its boundaries,
            if necessary, while maintaining status quo until then. The
            operative part of the impugned judgment is as follows:
                “The Petition is allowed in part. The impugned order
                dated 28.09.2015 passed by the I Additional District
                Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Misc.
                No.l57 /2014 in so far as it relates to setting aside the
                auction sale dated 19.04.2003 and the consequent
                confirmation of sale and the sale certificate dated
                09.09.2005 in respect of Sy.No.67 of Agara village,
                Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk is set aside.
                However, the Petitioner shall pay a further sum of
                Rs.25,00,000-00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh only)
                per acre to the respondent No.1 as additional sale
                price within three months from the date of receipt of
                a copy of this Order. The District Court is directed to
                conduct a survey of the auctioned property measuring
                5 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.67 of Agara village,
                Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and fix its
                boundaries and thereupon take steps to rectify the
                boundaries mentioned in the sale certificate dated
                09.09.2025, if necessary. Until then, the parties shall
                maintain status quo.”
     2.22 Aggrieved by this decision, both parties have approached
          this Court.
3.   The appellant has preferred Civil Appeal No.8544 of 2024 aggrieved
     by the two directions given by the High Court in the impugned
     order relating to additional payment of Rs.25 lakhs per acre to the
     respondent as additional sale price and secondly, the direction to the
     District Court to conduct the survey of the auction property measuring
     5 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.67 and to fix its boundaries.
4.   The respondent and his wife Arti Krishna have preferred Civil Appeal
     No.8545 of 2004 aggrieved by the first part of the impugned order
2098                                                       [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     of the High Court whereby, the auction sale dated 19.04.2003, its
     confirmation and the sale certificate dated 09.09.2005 in respect of
     Sy. No.67 has been confirmed in favour of the appellant.
5.   Contempt Petition No.657 of 2024 was filed by respondent alleging
     that the appellant was proceeding to raise constructions despite
     interim injunction granted by this Court.
6.   We have heard the learned Senior Counsels/Counsels appearing
     for the parties at length and have also examined the record with
     due care.
7.   At the outset, we record our appreciation that the learned Single Judge
     of the High Court has carefully considered the long-drawn litigation,
     involving several rounds inter se the parties, as well as the various
     contentions raised and the conduct of the parties throughout. The
     learned Single Judge has rendered a just and equitable judgment
     by taking into account both the mitigating and aggravating aspects
     of their conduct. We find that the learned Single Judge has dealt
     with each and every argument methodically and in the true spirit of
     law and justice.
8.   In view of the above, we do not consider it necessary to deal with
     the individual submissions in detail. The High Court has already
     examined these very submissions at length, as noted hereinbefore,
     and we find ourselves in agreement with its findings. Our reasons for
     concurring with the same are recorded in the paragraphs that follow.
9.   The fact remains that the appellant, auction purchaser had purchased
     Sy.No.67 comprising of three parts with total area of 5 acres and
     20 guntas (5-1/2 acres). Once the area had been specified of the
     three parts being (a) 1 acre 24 guntas (b) 36 guntas and (c) 3 acres,
     totalling 5 acres and 20 guntas (5-1/2 acres), the appellant would
     not be entitled to hold possession of any more area than what was
     purchased in the auction and as mentioned in the sale certificate.
10. Further, the issue relating to the identification and measurement
    had been raised in the very beginning and there are reports of the
    Bailiff, who had gone to deliver the possession stating that there
    was difficulty in identifying the same. In the garb of boundaries being
    mentioned, the appellant auction purchaser cannot claim any more
    area than what was put up for auction and thereafter purchased by
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                      2099

                     Sri R Raghu v. Sri G M Krishna & Anr.


     him. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the
     direction of the High Court to get the survey carried out for specific
     measurements of the purchased property.
11. Insofar as the direction for payment of Rs.25 lakhs per acre as
    additional sale consideration to the respondent is concerned, we do
    not wish to interfere with the same, considering the conduct of the
    appellant, whose dual role casts doubt on the entire proceedings.
    However, since the matter had earlier travelled up to this Court, we
    are not inclined to disturb the auction or the sale certificate. At the
    same time, we are of the view that the additional amount directed
    by the High Court is both well-deserved and justified.
12. The respondent’s claim in his appeal for setting aside the auction
    proceedings and the sale certificate has been rightly rejected by
    the High Court in view of his conduct. Firstly, he failed to take any
    steps to challenge the sale for more than two years. In any case,
    the bar contained in Sections 79A, 79B and 79C of the 1961 Act
    stood repealed in 2020 with retrospective effect from 01.03.1974,
    and therefore the objection relating to misrepresentation by the
    appellant would lose its significance. Further, the application filed
    under Order 21 Rule 90 read with Rule 47 CPC, wherein all such
    objections had been raised as far back as 2002, was rejected up to
    this Court. Hence, commencing a second round of objections on the
    pretext that the appellant had been shifting his stand as to who is the
    purchaser which is an issue already raised in the earlier objections,
    could not have been permitted and is clearly barred in law.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, we agree with the direction of the High
    Court to confirm the auction sale proceedings.
14. For all the reasons recorded above, both the civil appeals lack merit
    and are dismissed. Consequently, the contempt proceedings are
    also closed.

     Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan