Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 968 (HP)

SANTOSH KUMAR SOOD, S/O SH. SUKH RAM v. KUSHLA DEVI, D/O SH. AMAR NATH SOOD

2021-12-17

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2021
ORDER : Instant Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, lays challenge to order dated 9.3.2020, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., whereby an Execution petition No.66/X/2018, having been filed by the petitioner-Decree holder (hereinafter referred to as the DH) under Order XXI Rules 11(2), 95 and 96 CPC, came to be dismissed. 2. For having bird’s eye view, certain undisputed facts as emerge from the record are that a civil suit bearing No. 3-P/1/95/90 for recovery of money having been filed by the Decree holder, Sh. Santosh Kumar Sood against the person namely, Sh. Amar Nath Sood came to be decreed for sum of Rs. 4,40,162/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. June 1987 vide judgment and decree dated 16.05.1997, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. Decree holder filed an Execution petition for execution of aforesaid judgment and decree and therein filed an application for attachment of the property of the judgment debtor Sh. Amar Nath. In execution proceedings, warrants of attachment of properties were issued and thereafter properties were put to sale. Sale of property was opposed by the respondent judgment debtor on various grounds, however fact remains that judgment debtor purchased attached property for partly sum of Rs. 30,000/- and learned executing court allowed the execution petition as partly satisfied. Decree holder filed petition before this Court against aforesaid order passed by learned District Judge. This Court set-aside the sale and ordered for restoration of the execution petition to its original number. Warrants of sale were issued more than once and at one point of time, respondent/objector Ashok Kumar purchased a truck from the judgment debtor and made a statement to pay sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of the truck to the Decree holder, but he failed to adhere to his assurance and filed review application in execution petition with a prayer to review the order dated 6.6.2006. Review application having been filed by objector-respondent herein was rejected vide order dated 5.12.2007, whereafter he being aggrieved, filed petition before this Court, which again came to be rejected vide order dated 7.8.2007. Since, attached property was not being sold despite best efforts, Decree holder with the permission of the Court participated in the sale and purchased the alleged property for sum of Rs. 13,21, 445/-. Since, attached property was not being sold despite best efforts, Decree holder with the permission of the Court participated in the sale and purchased the alleged property for sum of Rs. 13,21, 445/-. After purchase of sale property by Decree holder, sale certificate though was issued in his favour, but since some of the properties put to auction were not mentioned therein, he filed an application under Sections 151, 152 and 153 CPC , praying therein for amendment/correction in sale certificate dated 11.11.2009. Decree holder averred in the application that sale certificate issued in his favour was not issued in terms of the Order 21 Rule 68 CPC as the same did not contain the necessary detail in respect of auction/sale. Respondent No.2/ objector contested the application claiming therein certain interest in the property. Learned Executing Court while allowing the application concluded that sale certificate was required to be issued as per sale warrants, wherein description of attached property of the judgment debtor had been mentioned vide para-I to xiii, whereas in the sale certificate, the shops, residential area as stated in para No.VI, VIII, XI, XII and XIII had been excluded, therefore, correct certificate be issued after including this property. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order passed by executing court, respondent/objector filed CMPMO No.16 of 2018 in this Court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 23.8.2018 (Annexure P-1). While dismissing the petition having been field by the respondent/objector, this court having taken note of the fact that Decree holder despite having decree in his favour failed to enjoy the fruit of success, directed the executing Court to ensure that properties as mentioned in the correct sale certificate and all other consequential action, if not already taken, be taken within 15 days from the receipt of the copy of the order. After passing aforesaid order, parties appeared before the Executing Court on 27.8.2018. Decree holder filed execution petition No.66/X/2018 on 26.11.2018 under Order 21 Rules 11(2), 95 and 96 CPC, praying therein for issuance of warrant of possession of land as per certificate of sale (corrected vide order dated 27.11.2017) and for recovery of rent of rupees 3,00,000/- per annum at the annual rate of 12% (Compounding) yearly from the date of public auction i.e. from 24.5.2007 to 23.52018 i.e. for 11 years, which comes out to Rs. 33,00,000/- plus total interest Rs. 36,39,939= Rs. 33,00,000/- plus total interest Rs. 36,39,939= Rs. 69,39,939/-, so obtained by the judgment debtor/respondent No.2 from the building occupied by the State Bank of India, Branch Upper Khaira and KCC Bank branch lower Khaira, purchased by the Decree holder in the public auction. Averments/facts narrated in the application are verbatim same as has been taken note hereinabove and as such, same are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. 4. In nutshell, Decree holder claimed in the execution petition that delivery by way of possession of the properties, as specifically detailed in the Sale Certificate dated 29.11.2017, be given, which is reproduced hereinbelow: (i) Land Khata No. 76, Khatauni No. 159, Khasra Nos. 325, 326, 329, 369, 371, kita 5, area 0-02-50 hectares to the extent of 1/5th share working out 0-05-30 hectares in Mohal Kanyalakd, vide Jamabandi 1995-96; (ii) Land Khata No. 77, Khatauni No. 160, Khasra Kita 31, area 0- 59-22 hectares to the extent of 21/780 hectares, working out to 0-01-59 hectares in Mohal Kanyalakd, vide Jamabandi 1995- 96. It is averred that there is one building rented out to KCC Bank, owned by Amar Nath; (iii) Land Khata No. 78, Khatauni No. 163, Khasra Kita-8, area 0- 02-95 hectares to the extent of 21/3120 hectares, share working out to 0-00-02 hectares situated in Mohal Kanyalakd, vide Jamabandi 1995-96; (iv) Land Khata No. 80, Khatauni No. 166/1 to 172, Khasra Kita 20, area 0-15-05 hectares to the extent of 21/3120 hectares, share working out to 0-00-10 hectares, in Mohal Kanyalakd vide Jamabandi 1995-96; (v) Land Khata No. 80/1 Khatauni Nos.173, 174, and 175 Khasra Kita 4, area 0-04-71 hectares to the extent of 21/3120 hectares, share working out to 0- 00-03 hectares, in Mohal Kanyalakd, vide Jamabandi 1995-96 alongwith a house and a shop situated in the aforesaid land in Mohal Kanyalakad, as per Jamabandi 1995-96; (vi) Land Khata No. 10, Khasra Kita 2, area 0-01- 32 hectares to the extent of 1/30 hectares, share working out to 0-00-04 hectares, situated in Upperla Khaira, vide jamabandi 1995-96. One residential Kothi Pucca double storey lintel roofed situated in Mohal Kanyalakd; (vii) One shop single storey lintel roofed Pucca situated in the aforesaid land of Mohal Kanyalkad to the extent of 1/4th shares; (viii) Land Khata No. 10, Khasra Kita 2, area measuring 0-01-32 hectares to the extent of 1/30 hectares, share working out to 0- 00-04 hectares, situated in Upperla Khaira, vide Jamabandi for the year 1995-96; (ix) Land Khata No. 18, Khasra kita 4, area measuring 0-45-88 hectares to the extent of 1/15 hectares, share measuring 0-03- 06 hectares of Mohal Upperla Khaira, vide Jamabandi 1995-96; (x) Land Khata No. 19, Khasra Kita 3, area measuring 0-01-78 hectares to the extent of 1/30 hectares, share measuring 0-00- 06 hectares of Mohal Upperla Khaira vide Jamabandi for the year 1995-96; (xi) Land Khara No. 20, Khasra Kita 3, area measuring 0-19-14 hectares to the extent of 1/48 hectares, share measuring 0-00- 40 hectares situated in Mohal Upperla Khaira, Mouza Khaira, Teh. Palampur, Distt. Kangra (HP), alongwith shops and houses built by Amar Nath and others. One building rentred out to SBI at Upperla Khaira, Teh. Palampur to the extent of 1/4th share; (xii) seven shops double storey Pacca situated in Upperla Khaira, Teh. Palampur; (xiii) two shops double story slate roofed situated in Upperla Khaira, Teh. Palampur, to the extent of 1/4th share. 5. Aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the Decree holder came to be resisted on behalf of the respondent-objector, who besides taking preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and limitation claimed that decree, dated 16.5.1997 stands duly satisfied by sale of property of judgment debtor. He also claimed that sale certificate was issued and application of Decree holder for sale certificate was allowed on 1.12.2008. He further averred that the applicant/ Decree holder had filed an application under Sections 151,152 and 153 CPC for correction of sale certificate and same was allowed and corrected on 29.11.2017, thereafter present application is hopelessly time barred and as such, deserves outright rejection. He further averred that there is no decree of possession passed by the Court and as such, possession cannot be delivered. He also claimed that applicant is not entitled for recovery of rent. Besides above, respondent/objector averred in the reply that there is a civil suit titled as Kirna Devi @ Kirna Kumari Vs. Santosh Kumar Sood and others pending adjudication before ld. He also claimed that applicant is not entitled for recovery of rent. Besides above, respondent/objector averred in the reply that there is a civil suit titled as Kirna Devi @ Kirna Kumari Vs. Santosh Kumar Sood and others pending adjudication before ld. Civil Judge, Palampur and therein certificate of Sale dated 11.11.2009, as corrected on 29.11.2017, has been challenged. He claimed that present execution petition is a counter blast to the suit, as detailed hereinabove. He also claimed before the executing court that suit No.338/09/2016, titled as Harish Chand @ Ramesh Chand and anr Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors filed before ld. Sr. Civil Judge, Palampur is/was with respect to the estate of Smt. Karodhu, in which, the Will dated 20.05.1993 executed by Karodhu Devi, was challenged, and same was decreed and the Decree holder was defendant No.4, in that suit. He further claimed that since in the aforesaid case Will has been set aside, the present application has no concern with this suit property and the sale certificate has become infructuous. 6. Having taken note of the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, learned executing court below dismissed the execution petition being wholly misconceived and not maintainable vide order impugned in the instant proceedings. In the aforesaid background, Decree holder has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 7. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing the Decree holder, vehemently argued that order impugned in the instant proceedings, is totally contrary to the law as well as factual position available on record and as such, same is not sustainable. He argued that executing Court had no option, but to deliver the possession of the properties, as detailed in sale certificate dated 29.11.2017. While referring to judgment dated 23.8.2018, passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CMPMO No.16 of 2018 tilted as Ashok Kumar alias Harbans Lal versus Santosh Kumar Sood and another, Mr. Sharma, strenuously argued that respondent/objector has no locus, whatsoever to oppose the execution petition and as such, court below has fallen in grave error while entertaining the objections filed on his behalf. Sharma, strenuously argued that respondent/objector has no locus, whatsoever to oppose the execution petition and as such, court below has fallen in grave error while entertaining the objections filed on his behalf. He further argued that findings returned by the court below that execution petition filed under 21 Rules 11(2), 95 and 96 CPC, praying therein for issuance of warrants of possession of land is not maintainable, is not sustainable in the eye of law because no execution petition could have been filed by the Decree holder before correction of sale certificate, which is in the case at hand was done on 29.11.2017. He submitted that bare reading of provisions contained under Order 21 Rule 95 itself suggests that execution petition can only be filed after issuance of sale certificate and since in the case at hand corrected sale certificate was issued on 29.11.2017, execution petition having been filed by the Decree holder cannot be held to be not maintainable. Lastly, Mr. Sharma contended that once seven shops double storey pucca situated in Upperla Khaira, Tehsil Palampur stood mentioned at Sr.No.12 of the sale certificate, Executing court erred in recording finding that without identifying shops with reference to any Khasra numbers or in whose possession these shops are, prayer made on behalf of the Decree holder cannot be accepted. 8. Mr. K.D.Sood, learned Senior counsel representing the respondent/objector while making this Court to peruse the revenue record placed on record by the Decree holder alongwith the petition, submitted that once respondent/objector has been shown to be one of the co-sharer in the property, he cannot be said to be stranger and as such, being one of the co-sharer could always file objection to the execution petition. Mr. Sood, further argued that executing court below has rightly held execution petition filed by the Decree holder to be not maintainable because limitation in filing execution petition under order 21 Rule 11(2), 95 and 96 CPC would commence from the date of confirmation of sale and not from the date of issuance of sale certificate. He further argued that otherwise also execution petition filed by the Decree holder is/was not maintainable on account of order dated 8.5.2000, passed by Executing Court in earlier execution petition filed by the Decree holder, wherein property of the judgment debtor was ordered to be sold. 9. He further argued that otherwise also execution petition filed by the Decree holder is/was not maintainable on account of order dated 8.5.2000, passed by Executing Court in earlier execution petition filed by the Decree holder, wherein property of the judgment debtor was ordered to be sold. 9. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute interse parties that suit having been filed by the Decree holder was decreed for the sum of Rs. 4,40,162/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution till payment. It is also not in dispute that aforesaid judgment and decree has attained finality. It is also not in dispute that Decree holder was permitted to participate in the auction of the property of judgment debtor and he purchased the property for sum of Rs. 13, 21,445/- vide sale dated 24.5.2007 and such sale was further confirmed by Court vide order dated 27.6.2007. After confirmation of the sale vide order dated 27.6.2007, application for issuance of sale certificate was filed and same was allowed on 1.12.2008. Though, sale certificate was issued on 1.12.2008, but since there were some clerical errors, whereby certain properties put to auction, were not mentioned, an application was filed by the Decree holder for amendment /correction in the said sale certificate dated 11.11.2009, which was allowed by the court and fresh sale certificate was issued on 29.11.2017. Though, aforesaid order was assailed by the respondent/objector, but petition having been filed by him was dismissed vide order dated 23.8.2018 passed by this Court in CMPMO No.16 of 2018. After passing of judgment, dated 23.8.2018, Decree holder filed execution petition under Order 21 Rules 11(2), 95 and 96 CPC for issuance of warrants of possession of land as per certificate of sale (corrected vide order dated 27.11.2017) and for recovery of rent of Rs. 3, 00,000/- per annum at the rate of 12%, however such petition of him came to be rejected being wholly misconceived and not maintainable. 10. Since, specific objections has been raised by the respondent-objector with regard to limitation coupled with the fact that execution petition having been filed by the Decree holder has been held to be not maintainable, this Court deems it fit to deal with the question of maintainability and limitation at first instance. 11. 10. Since, specific objections has been raised by the respondent-objector with regard to limitation coupled with the fact that execution petition having been filed by the Decree holder has been held to be not maintainable, this Court deems it fit to deal with the question of maintainability and limitation at first instance. 11. Before ascertaining the correctness and genuineness of the submissions and counter submissions having been made by learned counsel representing the parties vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, it would be profitable to take note of provisions contained under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC hereinbelow:- 95. Delivery of property in occupancy of judgment debtor.- Where the immovable property sold is in the occupancy of the judgment debtor or of some person on his behalf or of some person claiming under a title created by the judgment debtor subsequently to the attachment of such property and a certificate in respect thereof has been granted under rule 94, the court shall, on the application of the purchaser, Order delivery to be made by putting such purchaser or any person whom he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf in possession of the property, and, if need be, by removing any person who refuses to vacate the same. 12. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior counsel representing the Decree holder while referring to aforesaid provisions of law, vehemently argued that since in the case at hand corrected sale certificate was issued on 27.11.2017, Decree holder could only file execution petition after 27.11.2017 and if limitation is counted from that date, petition having been filed by Decree holder cannot be said to be barred by limitation. 13. Though, cursory perusal of provisions contained in Rule 95 Order 21 CPC does indicate that where the immovable property sold is in the possession of the judgment debtor or of some person on his behalf or a person claiming under a title created by the judgment debtor subsequently to the attachment of property and a certificate in respect of such property stands granted under Rule 94, the court shall, on the application of the purchaser would order delivery by putting such purchaser or any person whom he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf in possession of the property, however, no time period has been specified in the aforesaid provision to file application. Since, no time period is prescribed under the afore rule for filing application, provision of Limitation Act would apply. 14. Article 134 of Limitation Act, provides that an application for delivery of possession by a purchaser of immovable property at a sale in execution of a decree is to be made within one year when the sale becomes absolute. Since Rule 95 CPC does not indicate the time within which an application is to be made, reference is necessarily required to be made to schedule to the Limitation Act 1963. Though, Rule, as taken note hereinabove, suggests that sale certificate would entitle Decree holder to obtain possession under Rule 95 of Order 21, but definitely there is nothing in Rule 95 to make it incumbent for the purchaser to file certificate alongwith his application. Though, after confirmation of sale, it is compulsory to issue certificate, but the failure to issue certificate on account of inaction of purchaser or on account of action of the court has no bearing on the limitation for an application under Article 134 of Limitation Act. Once sale is confirmed by the Court, it confers absolute title on the auction purchaser to seek execution. In catena of cases, it has been held that sale certificate does not create any title, but it is merely evidence of title, which can also be proved independently of the sale certificate. Once sale is confirmed, the sale certificate is formal acknowledgment of a fact already accomplished stating as to what stood sold. In this regard reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Lingarajaiah Vs. H.N. Jambappa, 2014 (3) KCCR 2009 , wherein it has been held as under:- “9. A perusal of Rule 95 CPC would indicate that where the immovable property is sold, is in occupation of judgment debtor or of some person on his behalf or of some person claiming a title created by Judgment debtor subsequent to the attachment of such property and certificate in respect thereof has been granted under Rule 94 CPC, the Executing Court on an application of the purchaser can order delivery of possession to be made by putting such purchaser or decree holder if necessary, by removing such person who refuses to vacate the same. Rule 95 CPC as such, does not indicate the time within which such an application is to be made. Rule 95 CPC as such, does not indicate the time within which such an application is to be made. As such, time prescribed under schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable namely, Third Division of Part I of Limitation Act, 1963 which relates to the applications specified thereunder. Article 134 of the Limitation Act would indicate that an application for delivery of possession by a purchaser of immovable property at a sale in execution of a decree has to be made within one year when the sale becomes absolute. 10. A sale becomes absolute when no application is made under Rules 89, 90 or Rule 91 or when such an application is made and disallowed. The title of the auction purchaser becomes complete on confirmation of sale under Order 21 Rule 92 CPC. Sale certificate would entitle the decree holder to obtain possession under Rule 95 of Order 21. There is nothing in Rule 95 to make it incumbent for the purchaser to file certificate along with his application. On confirmation of sale, it is compulsory to issue certificate. The failure to issue certificate whether delay arises due to the action of the Court or on account of inaction of the purchaser has no bearing on the limitation for an application under Article 134 of Limitation Act. The Decree Holder cannot seek to extend the limitation on the ground that sale certificate had not been issued. Therefore, issue of sale certificate is not sine-qua-non for filing of an application within time prescribed under Article 134. Once sale has been confirmed by the Court, it confers absolute title on the auction purchaser, whether he be the Decree Holder or a stranger. It has been held in catena of judgments that sale certificate does not create any title, but is merely evidence of title. Title can also be proved independently of the sale certificate. The sale certificate is rather a formal acknowledgment of a fact already accomplished, stating as to what stood sold. 15. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Abdul Ubedulla Vs. Noorjahn, (2014) 3 KCCR 2056 , wherein it has been held as under:- “7.Before dwelling upon the point for consideration it is essential to understand the scheme provided for sale of an immovable property under the Code of Civil Procedure. 15. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Abdul Ubedulla Vs. Noorjahn, (2014) 3 KCCR 2056 , wherein it has been held as under:- “7.Before dwelling upon the point for consideration it is essential to understand the scheme provided for sale of an immovable property under the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 21 Rule 82 to Rule 95 deal with sale of immovable property by the Court. Once a property is offered for sale in auction conducted by the Court, the highest bidder in such public auction would be declared as purchaser and shall pay 25% of the purchase money immediately and the balance is payable in the Court before the Court closes on the 15th day from the date of sale of property. After such sale, Rule 89 provides for an application for setting aside the sale on account of sale consideration being not deposited in the Court. Rule 90 provides for an application for setting aside the sale on the ground of irregularity or fraud. Where no application is made under Rule 89, 90 or 91 or where such application is made and disallowed under Rule 92, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale and there upon the sale shall become absolute. Once an order is made confirming the sale, no suit to set aside an order confirming such sale shall be brought by any person against whom such order is made. The remedy provided against an order confirming the sale is to prefer an appeal and separate suit not maintainable. On the to prefer an the full details confirmation of sale the Court shall grant a certificate specifying the and description of the property sold; the name of the person who at the time of auction sale is declared as be the purchaser and the date on which the sale became absolute. The sale certificate is thus, only an evidence of such sale and not a document of title. The title in an immovable property sold in the Court sale passes to the auction purchaser, not under the certificate of sale but by an order of confirmation of sale. 8. The title of the Court auction-purchaser becomes complete on the confirmation of the sale under Order 21 Rule 92. By virtue of Section 65 CPC, the property vests in the purchaser from the date of sale. 8. The title of the Court auction-purchaser becomes complete on the confirmation of the sale under Order 21 Rule 92. By virtue of Section 65 CPC, the property vests in the purchaser from the date of sale. The certificate of sale, by itself do not create any title. It is merely evidence of title. The sale certificate is a formal acknowledgement of a fact already accomplished, stating as to what stood sold. Such act of the Court is pristinely a ministerial one and not judicial. It is in the nature of a formalization of the obvious. The title to the property sold does not vest in the purchaser immediately on the sale thereof unlike in the case of a private sale. The Court was required to make an order confirming the sale, it is upon such confirmation that the sale becomes, absolute in terms of Order 21 Rule 92. Such certificate bears the date as on which the sale became absolute. It is on the sale becoming absolute that the property sold vests in the purchaser. The vesting of the property is thus made to relate back to the date of sale as required under Section 65 CPC. 9, therefore, once the sale is confirmed by an order of the Court, the auction purchaser would be entitled to possession of the property sold at the auction on an application being made by the purchaser under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC for an order delivering the property in his favour by putting him in possession of the same. 10. Article 134 of the Limitation Act prescribes the time limit within which an application under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC is to be filed and it reads as under: Article 134 For delivery of possession by a purchaser of immovable property at sale in execution of a decree One year When the sale becomes absolute 11. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that an application under Order 21 Rule 95 for delivery of possession by a purchaser of immovable property on a sale in execution of a decree is to be filed within one year from the date when the sale becomes absolute. In other words, one year period starts running from the date when the Executing Court passes an order under Order 21 Rule 92 CPC confirming the sale. In other words, one year period starts running from the date when the Executing Court passes an order under Order 21 Rule 92 CPC confirming the sale. There is no time gap between an order confirming the sale and the same becoming absolute. Once an order is passed confirming the sale, the sale becomes absolute and within one year from that date, an application under Order 21 Rule 95 has to be filed. Issue of sale certificate under Rule 94 is of consequence. The auction purchaser can seek delivery of possession under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC even without obtaining a certificate of sale. Even otherwise, when a sale certificate is issued on a subsequent date, it shall bear the date on which the sale became absolute Therefore, it is not the date of issue of sale certificate but the date on which the sale became absolute which is relevant for calculating the period of limitation under Article 134 of the Limitation Act in respect of an application under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC. 16. In Danish Varghese versus Jancy Danish, (2021) 1 KLJ 755 , wherein it has been held as under:- “7. Before answering the crucial question, it will be useful to refer to certain provisions of CPC which directly bear on the question. Order XXI Rule 82 to Rule 88 of CPC deals with court sale. Rule 89, Rule 90 and Rule 91 of CPC provide the three specific grounds on which the Court sale can be set aside. Order XXI Rule 92 of CPC deals with the stage when the sale becomes absolute. It provides that, where no application is made under Rule 89 or Rule 90 or Rule 91 of CPC, or where such application is made and disallowed, the court shall make an order confirming the sale and thereupon sale shall become absolute. Rule 94 deals with the sale certificate issued to the purchaser. It provides that, where sale of immovable property has become absolute, the Court shall grant a certificate specifying the property sold and the name of the person who, at the time of sale was declared to be the purchaser. Such a certificate shall bear the date on which the sale took place. It provides that, where sale of immovable property has become absolute, the Court shall grant a certificate specifying the property sold and the name of the person who, at the time of sale was declared to be the purchaser. Such a certificate shall bear the date on which the sale took place. Rule 95 provides that, where the immovable property sold is in occupancy of the judgment debtor or of some other person on his behalf or of some person claiming under a title created by the judgment debtor subsequent to the attachment of such property and a certificate in respect thereof has been granted under Rule 94, the Court, shall, on an application of the purchaser order delivery to be made by such purchaser or any person whom he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf in possession of the property, and, if need be, by removing any person who refuses to vacate the same. Article 134 of the Limitation Act provides that the time limit for filing an application for delivery of possession is one year reckoned from the date when the sale becomes absolute. Section 65 CPC provides that where Court sale has become absolute, the property shall be deemed to have vested in the purchaser, from the time when property was sold and not from the time when sale becomes absolute. 8. To consider the legal question that has been referred in its correct perspective, the two specific ancillary points are to be analyzed. A. What is the starting point of one year limitation period prescribed under Article 134 of the Limitation Act. B. Is it mandatory for the auction purchaser to take delivery of the property purchased by him in court auction. Point No. A: What is starting point for reckoning one year period under Article 134 of the Limitation Act? 9. Whether the limitation period provided under Section 134 of the Limitation Act 1963 (corresponding to Article 180 of the Limitation Act, 1908) would start from the date of sale, date of confirmation of safe, or the date when sale certificate was issued has drawn the attention of the Courts in various decisions. Under Order XXI, Rule 92, after sale, the Court shall pass an order confirming sale and thereupon sale becomes absolute. Certificate of purchase is issued thereafter. Under Order XXI, Rule 92, after sale, the Court shall pass an order confirming sale and thereupon sale becomes absolute. Certificate of purchase is issued thereafter. Under section 65 CPC, property will vest with purchaser when the property is sold and not from the time when sale becomes absolute. However, under Article 134, Limitation period starts when sale becomes absolute. These provisions, prima facie gives an indication that Court sale, vesting of title, sale becoming absolute and issuance of sale certificate are different stages of sale. 10. In Babulal Nathoolal v. Mt. Annapurnabai (AIR 1953 Nag 215), the Division Bench was called upon to consider the question whether the application for delivery of possession under order XXI Rule 95 of CPC without enclosing the sale certificate under Order XXI Rule 94 of CPC was maintainable. It was held that sale certificate was not the title deed and it merely evidenced the title. It was held that, application for delivery of possession cannot be dismissed as barred by limitation, even if the sale certificate was obtained and filed after the period of limitation under Article 180 of the Limitation Act, 1908 has expired1 It was held that, there was nothing in Order XXI Rule 95 of CPC that made it incumbent on the auction purchaser to file certificate along with his application. It was held that, issuance of sale certificate was not the ‘sine quo non’ of filing the application under Order XXI Rule 95 of CPC. The implication was that the starting point of limitation was not the date when sale certificate was issued. 11. In Municipal Corporation Of Delhi v. Pramod Kumar Gupta . ( (1991) 1 SCC 633 : AIR 1991 SC 401 ), it was held that, title passes under the auction sale, by force of law and the transfer becomes final when an order under Rule 92 confirming it is made. By the certificate issued under Rule 94, the court was formally declaring the effect of sale and was not extinguishing or creating title. The object of issuance of such a certificate was to avoid any controversy with respect to the identity of the property sold and of the purchaser thereof and also the date when these all become absolute. 12. By the certificate issued under Rule 94, the court was formally declaring the effect of sale and was not extinguishing or creating title. The object of issuance of such a certificate was to avoid any controversy with respect to the identity of the property sold and of the purchaser thereof and also the date when these all become absolute. 12. In Sagar Mahila Vidyalaya, Sagar v. Pandit Sadashiv Rao Harshe ( (1991) 3 SCC 588 : AIR 1991 SC 1825 ), three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court opined that once an order under Order XXI Rule 92 CPC confirming the sale was made, the title of the auction purchaser relates back to the date of sale as provided under Section 65 CPC. The title in the property thereafter vests in the auction purchaser and not in the judgment debtor. The issuance of sale certificate under Order XXI Rule 94 CPC in favour of the auction purchaser though mandatory, the granting of certificate was a ministerial act and not judicial. In the above decision, it was concluded that, on confirmation of sale under Order XXI Rule 92 CPC, the right, title and interest of the judgment debtor over the property sold, stands completely transferred in favour of the auction purchaser. 13. Privy Council in Chandra Mam Saha v. Anrajan Bibi (1934 SCC OnLine PC 24) held that the words “when the sale become absolute” in Article 180 of the Limitation Act 1908, will have to be read along with Order XXI Rule 94 CPC and other relevant provisions of the Code, including those which relate to appeals from orders and whereas, there is appeal from order disallowing the application to set aside the sale, the sale will not become absolute within the meaning of Article 180 of the Limitation Act until the disposal of the appeal, even though the execution court might have confirmed the sale, as he was bound to do so, when he decided to disallow the above mentioned application. Hence, the privy council held that the sale become absolute on the date when the appeal filed against the judgment dismissing the application was rejected by the High Court. 14. The above view was followed in subsequent decisions including the decision of Supreme Court in Sri. Ranga Nilayam Rama Krishna Rao v. Kandokori Cheillayamma ( AIR 1953 SC 425 ). In Sri. 14. The above view was followed in subsequent decisions including the decision of Supreme Court in Sri. Ranga Nilayam Rama Krishna Rao v. Kandokori Cheillayamma ( AIR 1953 SC 425 ). In Sri. Ranga Nilayam Rama Krishna Rao's case, Supreme Court held that the three year period provided under Section 180 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 for filing an application under Order XXI Rule 95 by the purchaser for delivery of possession has to be reckoned from the date of the order in the appeal, the High Court having, under CPC, the same power as that of the trial court. The words “when the sale becomes absolute” for the purpose of Article 180 was when the High court disposes of the appeal, if any. 15. In Pattam Khader Khan's case (supra), the issue that came up for consideration was the date of commencement of limitation period under section 134 of the Limitation Act, for filing an application under Order XXI Rule 95 CPC. It was held that, sale as provided under Article 134 of the Limitation Act 1973, becomes absolute not on the date of issuance of the sale certificate. It need not always correspond to the date when the sale is made absolute by an order of the execution court under Order XXI Rule 95 also. Supreme Court held that court sale was a compulsory sale conducted by or under the orders of the court. The title of the property does not stand vested with the purchaser immediately on the sale unlike the case of private sale. The law requires that, it does not become absolute until some time after the sale, and the period of 30 days must expire from the date of sale before the sale can become absolute. In the meanwhile, the sale is susceptible of being set aside on any of the ground provided under Order XXI of Rules 89, 90 and 91 CPC. If no such application is made or such application if filed, is dismissed, the court shall be required to make an order confirming the sale and it is upon such confirmation that the sale become absolute in terms of the order XX1 Rule 92 CPC. After the sale has become absolute, the certificate, as required, to be granted by the court to the purchaser, termed as the certificate of sale as provided under Order XXI Rule 94 CPC is issued. After the sale has become absolute, the certificate, as required, to be granted by the court to the purchaser, termed as the certificate of sale as provided under Order XXI Rule 94 CPC is issued. Such certificate bears the date on which the sale became absolute. On the sale becoming absolute, the property sold vests on the purchaser and vesting is thus made to relate back to the date of sale under the provisions of Order XXI CPC, it was held. 16. Proceeding further, the Supreme Court held that there was nothing in Rule 95 CPC to make it incumbent for the purchaser to file certificate along with the application. When the sale become absolute, it is obligatory on the court to issue such certificate. That may, for many reasons get delayed. Whether there is a failure to issue certificate or delay of action on behalf of the Court or inaction of purchaser in completing formalities are factors which have no bearing on the limitation prescribed for application under Article 134 of the Limitation Act. The purchaser cannot seek to extend the limitation on the ground that the certificate has not been issued. It was concluded that the issue of sale certificate was not the sine quo non of the application since both those matters were within the jurisdiction of the same court. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the starting point for limitation under section 134 of the Limitation Act for filing application under Order XXI Rule 95 CPC was the date when the sale becomes absolute viz, the date on which the title passed. The evidence of title in the form of sale certificate issued from the court could always be supplied later to the court to satisfy the requirements under Order XXI Rule 95 CPC. According to the court, sale certificate was a formal acknowledgment of facts already accomplished stating as to what stood sold. Such act of the court was pristinely a ministerial one and not judicial.” 17. According to the court, sale certificate was a formal acknowledgment of facts already accomplished stating as to what stood sold. Such act of the court was pristinely a ministerial one and not judicial.” 17. Learned counsel representing the Decree holder placed reliance upon the following judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled State of Punjab versus S.P.Sharma, (1973) 2 SCC 466 , Ghanshyamdas and another versus Om Prakash and another, 1993 Supp(3) SCC 368 and Janak Raj versus Gurdial Singh and another, AIR 1967 SCC 608, to claim that sale becomes absolute with the issuance of sale certificate and without there being any sale certificate, no application for delivery of possession under Order 21 Rule 11(2) 95 and 96 CPC could be filed. 18. Having carefully perused the aforesaid judgments pressed into service by learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner-DH, this Court is of the view that same are not of any help to the case of the petitioner-DH. 19. Precisely, all the above relied upon judgments though declare that sale certificate in favour of the auction-purchaser was conclusive of the sale, but it has been nowhere held that application for warrant of possession of the property purchased in auction can only be filed after issuance of sale certificate. Once sale is confirmed by Court, it confers absolute title on the auction-purchaser to seek execution and as such, he/she immediately after confirmation of sale is required to file application for warrant of possession under Order 21 Rule 11(2) 95 and 96 CPC. 20. Judgment titled as K.R.Lakshminarayana Rao versus New Premier Chemical Industries, (2005) 9 SCC 354 , relied upon by learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner/DH itself lays down the law that once a decree stands satisfied, the execution proceedings come to an end and, in that view of the matter, proceedings contemplated under Order 21 Rule 25 CPC is required to be initiated for the purpose of obtaining delivery of possession of the property purchased in court auction by the decree holder, but such an application must be filed within the prescribed period of limitation as provided for under Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It would be profitable to reproduce para No.9 of the aforesaid judgment hereinbelow:- “9. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that when the decree is satisfied, the execution case comes to an end. It would be profitable to reproduce para No.9 of the aforesaid judgment hereinbelow:- “9. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that when the decree is satisfied, the execution case comes to an end. Once a decree is satisfied, the question of invoking the provisions of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would not arise, inasmuch as a bare perusal thereof would clearly go to show that the same would be attracted only when an application is filed for executing the decree. Article 136 of the Limitation Act is, therefore, not attracted when an application is required to be filed in the execution proceedings for a purpose other than for execution of the decree. Once a decree stands satisfied, the execution proceedings come to an end and, in that view of the matter, a proceeding in the nature of one contemplated under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC is required to be initiated for the purpose of obtaining delivery of possession of the property purchased in court auction by the decree holder. Such an application must be filed within the prescribed period of limitation as provided for under Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963 having provided for a specific provision prescribing limitation for filing an appropriate application for recovery of possession of any property in possession of the judgment-debtor, it is idle to contend that Article 136 of the Limitation Act would apply even in relation thereto. The law enunciated by the majority opinion of the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Kailash Chandra Tarafdar v. Gopal Chandra Poddar has been approved by this Court in Harnandrai case (1973) 2 SCC 467 in the following terms: (SCC pp. 470-71, para 5)” 21. Since in the case at hand sale was confirmed vide order dated 27.6.2007, Decree holder ought to have filed execution petition within a period of one year from the date of issuance of the sale certificate i.e. on or before 27.6.2008. However, in the case at hand, execution petition under Order 21 Rule 11(2) 95 and 96 CPC came to be filed on 26.11.2018 and as such, rightly came to be held not maintainable by executing Court below. However, in the case at hand, execution petition under Order 21 Rule 11(2) 95 and 96 CPC came to be filed on 26.11.2018 and as such, rightly came to be held not maintainable by executing Court below. Otherwise also, having carefully perused the order impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court finds no illegality in the same because same is based upon proper appreciation of facts as well as law. It is not in dispute that no decree for possession ever came to be passed by the Civil Court, rather Civil Suit No.03/P/1/95/1999 was decreed for sum of Rs. 4,40,162/- in favour of the Decree holder alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution till payment. 22. Apart from above, sale certificate itself suggests that Decree holder purchased shares in the various khatas and as such, he cannot claim himself to be absolute owner of the entire Khata, which was never purchased by him. Jamabandi for the year 2015-16, clearly depicts that Decree holder possesses certain shares alongwith other co-sharers in the joint land purchased by him in auction sale. Decree holder after having purchased share of judgment debtor Amar Nath only became one of the co-owner alongwith other co-owners and as such, he cannot claim himself to have become exclusive owner of the land. Since, he is one of the co-owner in the joint possession, prayer having been made on his behalf for issuance of warrants of possession of land as per sale certificate dated 27.11.2017, rightly came to be rejected by the Court. Decree holder after having obtained permission from the executing Court participated in sale and purchased the shares of the judgment debtor in the joint land and as such, he after having purchased the share of judgment debtor in the joint land became co-owner in joint possession, but definitely he cannot claim possession of entire joint land, which is yet to be partitioned in accordance with law. Judgment/decree sought to be executed stands duly satisfied and as such, no illegality and infirmity can be said to have been committed by the court below while dismissing his application. Judgment/decree sought to be executed stands duly satisfied and as such, no illegality and infirmity can be said to have been committed by the court below while dismissing his application. This Court finds from the record that Decree holder has been shown as one of co-owner in the joint land in the jamabandi for the year 2015-16 on the basis of sale certificate issued in his favour and as such, decree stands duly satisfied. In case, he wants to be declared as exclusive owner of his share, appropriate remedy for him is to file partition proceedings in accordance with law and definitely, he cannot be permitted to use provisions contained under 21 rule 11(2) 95 and 96 to partition the joint land. 23. This Court further finds from the reply filed by the respondent-JD to the application filed by the DH that land in question is a part of suit land, which was subject matter of Civil Suit No. 388/9/2016, titled as Harish Chand vs. Ashok Kumar etc, and in that suit Decree holder stood arrayed as defendant No.4. Though, appeal against the aforesaid judgment is stated to have been filed, but such fact never came to be brought on record by the Decree holder while seeking execution of decree by filing application under Order 21 Rule 11(2),95 and 96 CPC. No doubt, sale certificate talks about seven shops double story pucca situate at Uppral Khaira, Tehsil Palampur, but since Decree holder has not purchased specific share in the joint land, executing court below rightly held that applicant has not given the correct particulars of the property mentioned at Sr.No.12 of the list as to in which Khasra number these shops were situated or whether this was exclusive property of judgment debtor or it was also part of the joint land. Once Decree holder has become one of the co-owner and he wants that the opposite party should account for the rent received from various authorities in respect of rented premises, appropriate remedy is not to file application under Order 21 Rules 11(2), 95and 96 of CPC, but for that purpose he may have to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law. 24. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly same is upheld. 24. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly same is upheld. The present petition is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.