Court-auction title upheld: SC says High Court’s fact findings bind; benami/trust plea barred by Section 66 CPC
Case name: Palaniammal & Ors. v. Kamalakannan & Ors.
Date of Order: 17 March 2020
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 17355 of 2017
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, J.; Navin Sinha, J.
Held: In a challenge to a 1955 court-auction purchase, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s reversal of the trial court and held that the auction purchaser (Govindan) was the real owner, the sale certificate (21.07.1960) and contemporaneous records proving lawful title. The plaintiffs’ plea that Govindan bought benami/in trust for Govindasamy failed for want of proof and was in any event not maintainable under Section 66(1) CPC (as it then stood) which barred suits claiming that a certified auction purchaser bought on behalf of the judgment-debtor. With the First Appellate Court being the final court on facts, there was no occasion for the Supreme Court to reappreciate evidence.
Summary: The plaintiffs widow and heirs of Govindasamy filed a 1987 suit to undo a 26.09.1955 auction and seek possession/mesne profits, alleging Govindan (son-in-law of a family elder) was merely an ostensible bidder who bought for Govindasamy using his funds. The trial court, while not setting aside the sale, declared Govindan an ostensible owner holding the property in trust for Govindasamy and awarded mesne profits. On appeal, the High Court found a misappreciation of evidence and held Govindan to be the lawful purchaser, noting the auction proceedings of 13.10.1955, the sale certificate (21.07.1960), a 1962 deposit challan of the purchase money with interest, and ancillary records (patta, encumbrance entries, electricity papers) in Govindan’s name. Before the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs urged invalidity of the auction (non-payment within six months, alleged need for overbidding), fiduciary funding by Govindasamy, absence of adverse possession, and lack of regular patta; they relied on family relationships and later notices. The Court rejected these contentions, stressing that Govindasamy never challenged the auction in his lifetime (he died in 1987), the suit was brought three decades later, and the onus to prove funding/benami lay entirely on the plaintiffs—an onus not discharged. Crucially, Section 66(1) CPC (before its 19.05.1988 deletion) barred such a suit asserting that a certified court-auction purchaser bought on behalf of the judgment-debtor; hence the very frame of the suit was incompetent. Given that the High Court’s view rested on a proper appraisal of the record, the Supreme Court declined to disturb those factual findings.
Decision: Appeal dismissed. High Court judgment affirmed; plaintiffs’ suit fails as not proved and barred under Section 66(1) CPC.