ಬಿಸ್ವದೆಸನ್ ರಾಮಾನುಜ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಕ್ರಿಷ್ಣಚಂದ್ರ
AIR 1951 Ori 148 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1087621/
ಆದರೆ ಈ ನಿಯಮದ ಲಾಭ ಪಡೆಯಲು ಅಪರಿಚಿತ ಖರೀದುದಾರನಿಗೆ ತಾನು ನಿಜವಾಗಿಯೂ ಆ ಸ್ವತ್ತನ್ನು ನ್ಯಾಯ ಬೆಲೆಗೆ ಹಾಗು ನಂಬಿಕೆಯಿಂದಲೇ ಕೊಂದಿರುವುದಾಗಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ನಿರೂಪಿಸಬೇಕಾಗುವುದು.
ಸದರಿ ಮುಕದ್ದಮೇಯಲ್ಲಿ ಅಪರಿಚಿತ ಖರೀದುದಾರನು ಭೂಸ್ವತ್ತನ್ನು ಅತಿ ಕಡಿಮೆ ಬೆಲೆಗೆ ಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ನಿರೂಪಣೆ ಪ್ರಾಪ್ತವಾದ ಕಾರಣ ಒರಿಸ್ಸಾ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವು ಮುಕದ್ದಮೆಯನ್ನು ಪ್ರವೇಶಿಸಿ ಕೆಳಗಿನ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರನ ಅರ್ಜಿಯನ್ನು ಮತ್ತೆ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಸಮ್ಮತವಾಗಿ ನಡೆಸಿ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಪಟ್ಟ ನಿರೂಪಣೆ ಪತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ಹಾಗು ಅದನ್ನು ನಿರೂಪಿಸಲು ಯೋಗ್ಯ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳ ನಿರೂಪಣೆಯನ್ನು ಗಮನಿಸಿ ತೀರ್ಪು ಕೊಡಲು ಆದೇಶ ಮಾದಿತು.
8. It is thus clear that restitution in favour of the petitioner can be refused only if opposite party 1 can show that he is a 'bona fide' purchaser for value If the allegations made by the petitioner in his restitution petition are believed it is clear that opposite party 1 being a creature of the decree-holder was not a 'bona fide' purchaser at all. The property has been sold for a grossly inadequate price of Rs. 45/-. Valuable rent-free property of 12 acres 50 decimals would surely have fetched several thousands of rupees as fair price. In fact I notice that the record contains a mortgage bond dated 29-1-20 from which it appears that the previous owner of the property mortgaged 5 acres 19 decimals of the property with the petitioner for Rs. 300/- in 1920. It will be idle to contend that when the entire property was purchased in 1943 for Rs. 45/- the "purchase was for fair value". For some reason or other, evidence was not taken by trial court on the question of 'bona fide' of opposite party 1 and the fair value of the property. This is perhaps because the lower court was in some confusion as to the principle underlying restitution petitions and thought that it had no jurisdiction to grant restitution in cases of this type.. I am however unable to dispose of this revision petition in the absence of a clear finding as to whether opposite party 1 is really a 'bona fide' purchaser for value or not.
AIR 1951 Ori 148 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1087621/
ಈ ಮುಕದ್ದಮೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಳಗಿನ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಕದ್ದಮೆಯ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಕಾರುವಹಿಯಲಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸದ ಕಾರಣ ಅವನ ವಿರುದ್ಧವಾಗಿ ಮಾಡಲ್ಪಟ್ಟ ಆದೇಶದ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ಮಾರಲಾದ ಭೂಸ್ವತ್ತನ್ನು ನಂಬಿಕೆಯಿಂದ ಖರೀದಿಸಿದ ಅಪರಿಚಿತ ಖರೀದಿದಾರನಿಗೆ ಮುಂದೆ ಆ ಮುಕದ್ದಮೆ ಮೇಲಿನ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಿಂತಿರುಗಿಸಲಾಗಲು ಆ ಖರೀದಿದಾರನಿಗೆ ಯಾವ ಹಕ್ಕುಂಟು ಅಂಬ ವಿಷಯದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಚರ್ಚೆ ಆಗಿದೆ.
ಈ ಮುಂಚೆ ಈ ವಿಷಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಿವಿ ಕೌನ್ಸಿಲ್ ನಿರ್ಣಯ ೧೮೮೬ ಇಸವಿಯ 'ರೇವಾ ಮಹ್ತೊನ್ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ರಾಮ್ ಕ್ರಿಶನ್ ೧೩ IA ೧೦೬ : (೧೪ Cal ೧೮ PC) ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸುತ್ತಾ ಒರಿಸ್ಸಾ ಮುಖ್ಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವು ನಂಬಿಕೆಯಿಂದ ಖರೀದಿಸಿದ ಅಪರಿಚಿತ ಖರೀದುದಾರನಿಗೆ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯವಾಗಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವು ನಷ್ಟವಾಗುವ ನಿರ್ಣಯ ಮಾಡುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಒತ್ತಿ ಹೇಳಿತು.. ಹಗೆ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಬೆಲೆ ನೀಡಿ ನಂಬಿಕೆಯಿಂದ ಖರೀದಿಸಿದ ಅಪರಿಚಿತ ಖರೀದುದಾರನಿಗೆ ಆ ಭೂಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ ಮಾರಾಟದ ಕಚೇರಿಯ ಆದೇಶದ ನ್ಯಾಯಬದ್ಧತೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವಿಚಾರಿಸುವ ಬಾಧ್ಯತೆ ಇಲ್ಲವೆಂದು ನುಡಿಯಿತು.
ಸದರಿ ಮುಕದ್ದಮೇಯಲ್ಲಿ ಅಪರಿಚಿತ ಖರೀದುದಾರನು ಭೂಸ್ವತ್ತನ್ನು ಅತಿ ಕಡಿಮೆ ಬೆಲೆಗೆ ಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ನಿರೂಪಣೆ ಪ್ರಾಪ್ತವಾದ ಕಾರಣ ಒರಿಸ್ಸಾ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವು ಮುಕದ್ದಮೆಯನ್ನು ಪ್ರವೇಶಿಸಿ ಕೆಳಗಿನ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರನ ಅರ್ಜಿಯನ್ನು ಮತ್ತೆ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಸಮ್ಮತವಾಗಿ ನಡೆಸಿ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಪಟ್ಟ ನಿರೂಪಣೆ ಪತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ಹಾಗು ಅದನ್ನು ನಿರೂಪಿಸಲು ಯೋಗ್ಯ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳ ನಿರೂಪಣೆಯನ್ನು ಗಮನಿಸಿ ತೀರ್ಪು ಕೊಡಲು ಆದೇಶ ಮಾದಿತು.
Where property is sold in execution of an 'ex-parte' decree and purchased bona fide' by a third party for value and the 'ex-parte' decree is subsequently set aside, restitution will not ordinarily be granted against such stranger auction-purchaser. This principle was laid down by Privy Council as early as 1886 in the well-known case of 'Rewa Mahton v. Ram Krishen 13 I. A. 106: (14 Cal 18 P. C.)'. Their Lordships particularly emphasized that a person purchasing 'bona fide', and for a fair value, property exposed for sale under an execution issued by a Court of competent jurisdiction was not bound to make any enquiry into the correctness of the order for execution. The same principle was reiterated in 'Zainul-Abdin Khan v. Muhammad Asghar All Khan', 15 I. A. 12: (10 All 166 P. C.) where restitution was refused as against third party auction-purchasers. Similarly in 'Janukdhari Lal v. Gossain Lal, 11 C. L. J. 254: (37 Cal 107)' the Calcutta High Court relying on the aforesaid decisions of the Privy Council pointed out that a 'bona fide' purchaser for value without notice in execution of an 'ex-parte' decree could not be put on the same category as the decree-holder auction-purchaser and that restitution may not be available as against him. Again in 'Parsh Nath v. Haricharan', 38 Cal 622: (10 I C 361) it was held that the purchase made by an innocent purchaser for value" in execution of an 'ex-parte' decree should not be disturbed even though the 'ex-parte' decree might have been subsequently set aside. To a similar effect are the observations of the Allahabad High Court in 'Peary Lal v. Hanifunnissa Bibi', AIR (3) 1916 All 159: (38 All 240) and the observations of the Patna High Court in 'Chota Nagpur Banking Association v. C.T. M.Smith', AIR (30) 1943 Pat 325: 22 Pat 315).
8. It is thus clear that restitution in favour of the petitioner can be refused only if opposite party 1 can show that he is a 'bona fide' purchaser for value If the allegations made by the petitioner in his restitution petition are believed it is clear that opposite party 1 being a creature of the decree-holder was not a 'bona fide' purchaser at all. The property has been sold for a grossly inadequate price of Rs. 45/-. Valuable rent-free property of 12 acres 50 decimals would surely have fetched several thousands of rupees as fair price. In fact I notice that the record contains a mortgage bond dated 29-1-20 from which it appears that the previous owner of the property mortgaged 5 acres 19 decimals of the property with the petitioner for Rs. 300/- in 1920. It will be idle to contend that when the entire property was purchased in 1943 for Rs. 45/- the "purchase was for fair value". For some reason or other, evidence was not taken by trial court on the question of 'bona fide' of opposite party 1 and the fair value of the property. This is perhaps because the lower court was in some confusion as to the principle underlying restitution petitions and thought that it had no jurisdiction to grant restitution in cases of this type.. I am however unable to dispose of this revision petition in the absence of a clear finding as to whether opposite party 1 is really a 'bona fide' purchaser for value or not.
