Johny Ice Cancy vs Central Bank of India and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—Heard and gone through the record.

Petitioner is JD, against whom a money decree has been passed in a suit filed by the respondent Central Bank of India. He did not pay the decree money. His property consisting of a piece of land, measuring 4 marlas with a house standing thereon, was attached and it has now been sold for Rs. six lacs in favour of one Hem Raj, who is impleaded as respondent No. 2 herein. Said Hem Raj has deposited the entire sale proceeds. He thus, applied for issuance of sale certificate, which has also been issued, after confirmation of sale and now he has approached the Executing Court for delivery of possession of the property purchased by him. Warrant of possession has been ordered to be issued.

Petitioner has challenge the sale, in question, in favour of respondent No. 2 Hem Raj on the following grounds:

(i) Three of the bidders were the men put up by respondent No. 2 to bid at auction and those persons were Below Poverty Line and hence, incapable of raising funds for the purchase of the property put to auction.

(ii) Property was already attached, pursuant to an order of Commissioner, under Workmen Compensation Act.

(iii) Only the land was attached and not the structure standing thereon.

It is true that the petitioner has obtained some information in the form of Annexure P-4, under the Right to Information Act, which suggests that three of the bidders at auction were Below Poverty Line, their annual income being less than Rs. 26,593/- per annum. However, this does not mean that they were required by Hem Raj to bid for him or that they were not having any funds to purchase the property.

Next submission is also without merit because no prejudice has been caused to the present petitioner/JD on account of the property having been attached in execution of the decree in favour of the petitioner. If the property was already attached and it has now been sold pursuant to second attachment, at the instance of Decree Holder-Bank, it is not the petitioner, who is affected by the auction but the person(s) in whose favour order has been passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act and in execution of which order the property had allegedly been attached prior to the attachment at the instance of the DH Bank.

Third submission is also without merit because the attachment of site implied the attachment of structure standing thereon also because structures are part of immovable property, according to the well settled interpretation of Immovable Property.

For the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed.