B. PRAKASH RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, an auction purchaser, is aggrieved against the orders in I. A. No. 574 of 1993 in I. A. No. 105 of 1988 in O. P. No. 348 of 1988 dated 25-11-1993 on the file of the district Judge at Nizamabad, rejecting the claim towards interest on the amounts deposited in pursuance of a Court auction for the delay in its finalisation. ( 2 ) IN pursuance of execution of a decree for money, an auction was conducted through court on 6-2-1992, wherein, the petitioner was the auction purchaser in respect of item No. 1 and he deposited a sum of Rs. 24,72,045. 00 within a period of 14 days from the date of auction as per the terms of auction. Even though the sale certificate was issued on 30-6-1992 in his favour, the property could not be handed over to him due to delays caused in regard to the auction of other item No. II and the consequent various interlocutory proceedings in this regard and the revisions to this Court. ( 3 ) THE petitioner claimed interest on the amount so deposited on the ground that in spite of prompt deposit made and the issuance of sale certificate, he could not get the property due to various proceedings and thus there is inordinate delay resulting in blocking of the money. Thus, either way, he is deprived of enjoyment of the property and the money for no fault of his. ( 4 ) OPPOSING the claim, the respondent no. 1-decree holder contended that once an auction is held and the auction purchaser deposits the amount, it is the decree holder who is entitled to the amounts so deposited including the interest accrued thereon and the auction purchaser cannot have any right on the said amounts. Further, having submitted to the auction held by the Court, the auction purchaser must be prepared for all such delays in the proceedings and the decree holder cannot be mulcted with any such liability. ( 5 ) ON a consideration of the rival submissions, the court below rejected the application on the ground that the interest that gets accrued on the amounts deposited in pursuance of a Court auction goes to the decree holder and not to the auction purchaser. ( 5 ) ON a consideration of the rival submissions, the court below rejected the application on the ground that the interest that gets accrued on the amounts deposited in pursuance of a Court auction goes to the decree holder and not to the auction purchaser. ( 6 ) HAVING heard Sri Sanaka venkateswara Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Neela lohit, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 - the decree holder and also Sri C. C. S. Shastry, the learned counsel who was appointed as an amicus curiae, the controversy which crops for consideration is as to whether an auction purchaser in a court auction is entitled to interest on the amounts deposited towards sale amount due to delays in the delivery of possession of the property purchased in the said auction? ( 7 ) FROM the above stated narration, the admitted facts are that in the Court auction held in pursuance of a decree for recovery of money in respect of item I on 6-2-1992, the petitioner was the auction purchaser and in terms of the conditions of auction, the petitioner deposited the amount of rs. 24, 72, 045/- within a period of 15 days thereof. Subsequently, a sale certificate was issued to the petitioner on 30-6-1992. However, in respect of the auction conducted for item No. II, there have been various interlocutory proceedings, revisions and the entire proceedings were stayed. As a result, there was delay in effecting the delivery of the property to the petitioner. The petitioner claims a sum of rs. 2,82,258/- or such other amounts accrued towards interest. ( 8 ) APPARENTLY, the basis for the claim appears to be for the non-utilisation of the funds deposited or even non-making use of the property in the absence of the delivery thereof. The claim is sought to be put in the form of interest which in fact runs parallel to that of damages in torts. As far as the liability for interest is concerned, it is now well established that it has to be governed purely by a contract or by a statute. Otherwise, no such claim is sustainable in law. The question of awarding damages on par with interest does not arise in this case. Admittedly, there is neither any contract nor a statute governing the situation in this case. Otherwise, no such claim is sustainable in law. The question of awarding damages on par with interest does not arise in this case. Admittedly, there is neither any contract nor a statute governing the situation in this case. The petitioner is the purchaser in a court auction. It is not a voluntary sale or transaction as such or any inter-vivos transaction nor it arises out of any contract. Therefore, the Court auction does not constitute a voluntary sale or transaction but is an involuntary one. It is not the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the said auction and deposit made, it was set aside and while making a claim for refund of the amount deposited, any interest is being claimed. However, in this case, the only complaint is against the delay in effecting the delivery of the property, which is attributable only to Court proceedings and not otherwise. Further, no pointer can be raised as against the judgment debtor for any such delay. In support of the petitioner s claim, reliance was sought to be placed on the decision in Hindustan aeronautics Ltd. , Bangalore vs. Muniswamy reddy1 which was a case of payment of amounts as compensation for the lands which have been taken over wherein it was held that the interest is payable to the owner in consideration of his right to possession which he is deprived of when possession is taken from him. However, it was not a case of a Court auction and delay in effecting the delivery of property. Therefore, the said principle cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In the other decision cited across the Bar in m/s. Annapuma Industries vs. Syndicate Bank2 wherein a Court auction was set aside and the amount paid by the auction purchaser as the price of the property which was invested in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank, it was held that the interest accrued on such fixed deposit should be paid to the auction purchaser along with the principal amount in deposit. As already stated above, in the present case, there is no such setting aside of the auction and therefore, even this decision does not render any assistance to the petitioner s claim. As already stated above, in the present case, there is no such setting aside of the auction and therefore, even this decision does not render any assistance to the petitioner s claim. Strong reliance was sought to be placed on the decision in hirachand Kothari vs. State of Rajasthan3 wherein it was held that the award of interest on equitable grounds is permissible. It was a case where the government was held liable for certain amounts towards the value of the property taken by it and consequently it was held liable to pay interest on such amounts. Again this decision also cannot have any application to the facts of this case as it does not pertain to any court auction. Therefore, the principles of equity cannot be extended to such involuntary sales. In Motors and Investments ltd. , vs. New Bank of India4, the apex Court while considering a case of an auction which was set aside, gave a direction to pay interest on the amount deposited by the auction purchasers. Once again, even this decision cannot be made applicable as in this case no such auction was set aside for entitling any such interest consequently. ( 9 ) IN view of the above, it follows that it is only in a case where the auction is set aside, the auction purchaser would be entitled to interest on the amounts deposited by him. However, it cannot be said that the auction purchaser would be entitled to any interest for the delays in the finalisation of the proceedings or effecting delivery of possession more so, when the petitioner has submitted himself to the auction and the terms thereunder which do not contemplate any such payment of interest and further in the circumstances, the principles which apply to a case of voluntary sale cannot be made applicable in respect of involuntary sales. No doubt, having thus participated in the auction and the sale certificate having been issued, the petitioner is bound to pay the amount and cannot make any complaint in regard to any delays there of. ( 10 ) IN the above circumstances, I do not find any merits in the revision and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. No doubt, having thus participated in the auction and the sale certificate having been issued, the petitioner is bound to pay the amount and cannot make any complaint in regard to any delays there of. ( 10 ) IN the above circumstances, I do not find any merits in the revision and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ( 11 ) BEFORE parting with the case, this court places on record its appreciation for the able assistance rendered by sri C. C. S. Sastry, the learned amicus curiae in the adjudication of the question.