# RAGHUNATIIPRADHANI v. DAMODRA MAHAPATRA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1979] 2 S.C.R. 196
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-11-02
- **Bench:** Y. V. Chandrachud, P. S. Kailasam, A. D. Koshal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/raghunatiipradhani-v-damodra-mahapatra-and-ors-7499
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

c
Orissa Scheduled Areas Tran.rfer of Im1novable Property by Scheduled Tribes
Regulation 2 of 1956 and Rule 4 mode thereunder-Validity of Court attachment
without prior permission-Res judicata doctrine of applicability, whether nort
raising a particular contention operate as-Second Appeal and Appeal under Art.
136 of the Constitution-No ne>v plea can be allowed to be raised.
On the strength of the permission granted by the' Revenue Divisional Officer,
as required under clause 6 of the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of In1movable
Property by Scheduled Tribes Regulation 3 of 1956 and Rule 4 made thereunder,.
to sell his private property to a non-scheduled Tribe person for a sum of Rs.
40001-, Respondent 3 sold his property on January 2, 1964 by a registered deed·
of sale to the appellant, despite an attachment order passed by the Executing
D
Court on July 13, 1963 on an application dated June 28, 1963 made by Respondent l to recover the decretal amount as per the money decree obtained by him
on August 18, 1962 against Respondent 3 and his mother Respondent 4. Later,
Respondent No. 1 however, prcxluccd the copy of the order passed by the R.D.O.
dated October 23. 1963, at the instance of appellant in the Executing Court and
got the property put to sale on May 15, 1964. Jn the court auction respondent
2 son of respondent 1 purchased the property. On June 22, 1964, the appellant
E
filed an application under Order 21 Rules 89 and 90 llnd Sections 47 and 151
C.P.C. for setting aside the auction sale on the ground that the attachment and
the auction sale were void for want of permission from the competent authority
under Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956 and also due to fraud committed bY
the
decree holder.
The application ·was allowed followed by confirmation by the
appellate judge, in appeal.
But the High Court in Second Appeal reversed it
accepting the contention of res judicata.
F
(
H
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court.
HELD : 1. Both clauses 6 of the "Orissa Scheduled A.reas Transfer of
Immovable Property by Scheduled Tribes Regulation 2 of 1956, and Rule 4 made
thereunder, provide that no immovable properiy belonging to a nJember of the
scheduled Tribe is lible to be attached or sold except in accordance with the
permission granted by the competent authority. Prior to the sale to the private
party, the property was undoubtedly attached in execution proceedings Ln July
13, 1963, but the order of attachment was void, being contrary to the express
inhibition oontained in clause 6 of Regulation 2 of 1956 read with Rule 4 made
thereunder. [200E-G]
2. The auction sale is bad and invalid ;
It is elementary that what can be brought to sale in a Court sale is theright, title and interest of the judgment debtor and therefore, the auction purchaser can get nothing more than that right, title and interest.
In the instant
case, the appellant having become an owner of the property on account of the-
•
..
.r
f
•
'\
• •
RAGIHUNATH v. DAMODRA (Chandrachud, C.J.)
197
private sale· dated January 2, 1964 respondent 3 had no saleable interest left in
the property which could be put to auction. The auction sale therefore cannot
<lisplace the title of the appellant which is the san1e thing as saying that as
between the title of the appellant and the so called title of the auction purchaser
the appellant's title must prevail.
(200G-H, 201A}
Moreover, as the condition imposed by the R.D.0. regarding the price was
violated by the auction sale, the auction pur:haser cannot get a valid title to the
property under that sale. In the private sale, the appellt1.nt
purchased
the
'Pfoperty for Rs. 4,000/- and therefore the condition of the permission was complied with.
But the auction sale was held in satisfaction of the decretal dues
which were far less than Rs. 4,000/- the decree itself being in the sum of Rs.
1,000/- and odd and the highest bid at the auction being of Rs. 3.000/- only.
{201B-CJ
3. (a) Tile basic issue being the validity of auction sal

## Text

196
A
RAGHUNATIIPRADHANI
v.
DAMODRA MAHAPATRA AND ORS.
November 2, 1978
B
(Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., P. S. KAILASAM AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.j
c
Orissa Scheduled Areas Tran.rfer of Im1novable Property by Scheduled Tribes
Regulation 2 of 1956 and Rule 4 mode thereunder-Validity of Court attachment
without prior permission-Res judicata doctrine of applicability, whether nort
raising a particular contention operate as-Second Appeal and Appeal under Art.
136 of the Constitution-No ne>v plea can be allowed to be raised.
On the strength of the permission granted by the' Revenue Divisional Officer,
as required under clause 6 of the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of In1movable
Property by Scheduled Tribes Regulation 3 of 1956 and Rule 4 made thereunder,.
to sell his private property to a non-scheduled Tribe person for a sum of Rs.
40001-, Respondent 3 sold his property on January 2, 1964 by a registered deed·
of sale to the appellant, despite an attachment order passed by the Executing
D
Court on July 13, 1963 on an application dated June 28, 1963 made by Respondent l to recover the decretal amount as per the money decree obtained by him
on August 18, 1962 against Respondent 3 and his mother Respondent 4. Later,
Respondent No. 1 however, prcxluccd the copy of the order passed by the R.D.O.
dated October 23. 1963, at the instance of appellant in the Executing Court and
got the property put to sale on May 15, 1964. Jn the court auction respondent
2 son of respondent 1 purchased the property. On June 22, 1964, the appellant
E
filed an application under Order 21 Rules 89 and 90 llnd Sections 47 and 151
C.P.C. for setting aside the auction sale on the ground that the attachment and
the auction sale were void for want of permission from the competent authority
under Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956 and also due to fraud committed bY
the
decree holder.
The application ·was allowed followed by confirmation by the
appellate judge, in appeal.
But the High Court in Second Appeal reversed it
accepting the contention of res judicata.
F
(
H
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court.
HELD : 1. Both clauses 6 of the "Orissa Scheduled A.reas Transfer of
Immovable Property by Scheduled Tribes Regulation 2 of 1956, and Rule 4 made
thereunder, provide that no immovable properiy belonging to a nJember of the
scheduled Tribe is lible to be attached or sold except in accordance with the
permission granted by the competent authority. Prior to the sale to the private
party, the property was undoubtedly attached in execution proceedings Ln July
13, 1963, but the order of attachment was void, being contrary to the express
inhibition oontained in clause 6 of Regulation 2 of 1956 read with Rule 4 made
thereunder. [200E-G]
2. The auction sale is bad and invalid ;
It is elementary that what can be brought to sale in a Court sale is theright, title and interest of the judgment debtor and therefore, the auction purchaser can get nothing more than that right, title and interest.
In the instant
case, the appellant having become an owner of the property on account of the-
•
..
.r
f
•
'\
• •
RAGIHUNATH v. DAMODRA (Chandrachud, C.J.)
197
private sale· dated January 2, 1964 respondent 3 had no saleable interest left in
the property which could be put to auction. The auction sale therefore cannot
<lisplace the title of the appellant which is the san1e thing as saying that as
between the title of the appellant and the so called title of the auction purchaser
the appellant's title must prevail.
(200G-H, 201A}
Moreover, as the condition imposed by the R.D.0. regarding the price was
violated by the auction sale, the auction pur:haser cannot get a valid title to the
property under that sale. In the private sale, the appellt1.nt
purchased
the
'Pfoperty for Rs. 4,000/- and therefore the condition of the permission was complied with.
But the auction sale was held in satisfaction of the decretal dues
which were far less than Rs. 4,000/- the decree itself being in the sum of Rs.
1,000/- and odd and the highest bid at the auction being of Rs. 3.000/- only.
{201B-CJ
3. (a) Tile basic issue being the validity of auction sale in favour of respondent 2, no question of res j11dicata can arise.
the appellant claims through
the judgment-debtor and neither the latter nor the decree-holder ever disputed
that he, the judgment-debtor, was a. member of the Scheduled Tribe. On the
()ther hand both of them were conscious of the situation that the property could
not be sold without the sanction of the R.D.O .. No'1;Tangpur. The decree-holder
himself apprised the Executing Court of that position.
The permission which
\Vas grnted by the R.D.0., Nowrangpur at the instance of the appellant \vas produced by respondent 1 in the execution proceedings as if the permission
was
granted in sis favour for the sale by respondent 3 of his property. Thei failure,
therefore, of the judgment-debtor to raise any particular contention cannot operate as res judicata, actually or constructively, either against ·hin1 or against the
appellant.
[201D-F]
(b) Whether "Bhotras" fall within any of the sub groups of the Scheduled
Tribes enumerated in Part IX of the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled
Tribes) Order, 1950 is a question \vhich could not have been permitted to be
raised for the first time in the Second Appeal. Much less can it be allowed to
!be raised in this Court in an appeal under Art. 136 of
the
Constitutio.n.
[200C-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4)3 0! 1909.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 12·9-68 of the Orissa High
Court in Misc. Appeal No. 208 of 1966).
Sardar Bahadur Saharya and Vish11u Bahadur Saharya . for the
appellant.
Nemo for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was deliv~red by
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
Respondent 1 obtained a money decree on
August 18, 1962 against respondent 3 and his mother respondent 4.
On June 28, 1963 respond·ent 1 filed an execution petition for recovering the decMal amount and prayed therein for attachment of the immovable property belonging to respondent 3. The property was attached by an order passed by the Executing Court on July 13, 1963. Oh
November 27, 1963 respondent 1 filed an application ih the Executing
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 2 S.C.R.
Court praying that permission be obtained of the Revenue Divisional
Officer for sale of the proP'.;rty since respondtnt 3 to whom the prop.;rty belonged was a member of the Scheduled Tribe.
The permission was considered necessary by reason of the provisions contained
in Clause 6 of the "Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable
Property by Scheduled Tribes Regulation No. 2 of 1966". ll provides :
In execution of money decree against a member of a
Scheduled Tribe no right title or interest hdd by him in any
immovable property within any scheduled area shall be liable
to be attached and sold except as and if prescribed.
Rule 4 made under the aforesaid Regulation provides :
There shall be no attachment or sale of immovab:e property in execution of a money dec"'e against a member of a
Scheduled Tribe within any scheduled area without the written permission of the competent authority." The property :it
such a sale shall be sold only to a mzmber of a Scheduled
Tribe unless otherwise specifically directed in writing by the
competent authority.
The Revenu•.; Divisional Officer, Nowrangpur,
was
th.;
competent
authority for the present purpose.
Respondent 3 who was in the meantime negotiating for the private
sale of the property mowd the R.D.O., Nowrangpur on June 18, 1963'
for permission to sell the property io a non-Scheduled Tribe person.
He obtained the requisite permission by an order dared October 23,
1963 for the sale of the property for Rs. 4.000/-. On the strength of
the aforesaid permission respondent 3 sold th•.; property to the appellant
on January 2, 1964 by a registered deed of sale.
A copy of the order passed by th.; R.D.O. was produced by respondent 1 in the Executing Court wherellpon, on May 15, 1964 the
property was put to sale. Respondent 2, who is the son of respondent
I purchased the property in the auction sale.
On June 22, 1964 the appellant filed an application under Order
21 Rules 89 and 90 and Sections 47 aud 151 of the Code of Civil
Pxocedure praying that the auction sale should be set aside on the·
gr<TMnd that the attachment and the auction sale were void since they
were effected without obtaining the permission of the competent autho"
rity under Orissa Regulation No. 2 of 1956. The appellant also alleged
that the decree-holder had played a fraud on the Court by inducing it
23, 1963 which was passed by the competent authority at the instance
23, 1963 which was passed by the competent authority at the in;tance
of the appellant.
...
••
RAGIHUNATH v. DAMODRA (Chandrachud, C.J.)
199
Respondent 2 resisted the appellant's application on the ground
A
that he was a bona fide purchaser in a court sale, that the aforesaid sale
was held after the competent authority had granted permission for the
,..
sale of the property and that therefore his title to the property was not
,
liable to be displaced at the instance of the appellant. ,
The learned District Munsif who dealt with the matter accepted
B
the contention of the appellant and set aside the auction sale. In Civil
l'vliscellaneous Appeal No. 9 of 1965 filed by respondent 1, the Appel·
late Judge confirmed the order of the District Munsif and dismissed
the appeal.
Respondent I then filed a second appeal in the Orissa High Court,
being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 208 of 1966. Before the High Court
respondent 1 raised two conle11tions only viz., ( 1) that the judgmentdebtor, respondent 3. was not a member of the Scheduled Tribe and
therefore the attachment and the court sale were not void; and (2)
that the judgment-debtors. having failed to take obj•ection to the attachment on the ground that they belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, were
debarred from obj~cting to tbe sale of the property on the principle
of constructive res judicata.
The High Court rejected the first contention relying mainly on the
circumstance that respondent 1, the decPe'e-holder, had accepted the
position that respondent 3 whose property was being put to sale was
c
D
a member of the Scheduled Tribe.
Th·~ High Court however accepted
E.
the second contention on the, ground that neither respondent 3 nor the
appellant had taken any objection in the execution proceedings that
!linee the former bad no saleable interest in the property the auction
sale could not be held or that the permission given by the R.D.O. did
not authorise the sale.
Being apprieved by the judgment of the High
Court dated September 12, 1968, the private purchaser from the decreeF,
holder has filed this appeal.
We are in agreement with the view of the High Court that it is aot
open to respondent 1, the decree-hold~r, to con~~nd that respondent ·
3 whose property was pnt to sale in
the .execurion
proceedings
was not a member of the Scheduled Tribe.
Respondent 1 filed his
&
execution petition for the purpose of recovering the decretal dues by
attachment and sale of the property belonging to one of the judgmentdebtors, respondent 3.
Respondent 1 himself asked the Executing
",
Court to secure the permission of the competent authority for sale of
the property on the ground that respondent 3 whose property was to
be put to sale belonged to the Scheduled Tribe.
The permission from
K
the competent authority was later obtained by the appellant, with whom
respondent 3 was negotiating for a private sale of his property. The
A
B
D
E
F
G
200
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 2 S.C.R.
permission which was granted by the R.D.O., Nowrangpur at the instance of the appellant was. produced by respondent J in the cxecutic>n
proceedings as if the permission was granted in his favour for the sale
by respondent 3 of his property.
Respondent 1 cannot then be per-
•mitted to dispute that respondent 3 did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe
and therefore the permission of the competent authority was not needed
to validate the sale.
The contention that respondent 3 did not bo!ong to a Scheduled
Tribe was founded solely on the consideration that he belonged to the
Bhotra tribe which is not expressly mentioired as on•o of the Scheduled
Tribes in the schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes), Order,
1950. It may be assumed that respondent 3 is a Bhotra. But para·
graph 2 of the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 provides to the extent
material that the Tribes, or parts of, or groups within the Tribes specified in the Schedule to the Order shall also be deemed to be Scheduled
Tribes.
Whether Bhotras fall within any of the sub-groups of
the
Scheduled Tribes enumerated in Part IX of the Schedule to the 1950
Order is a question which could not have been permitted to be raised
for the first time in the second appeal.
Much less -:an it be allowed
to be raised before us. This appeal, like the second appeal before the
High Court, must therefore be disposed of on the basis that respondent
3 is a member of the Scheduled Tribe.
Upon that footing, the appellant must succeed because after the
R.D.O., Nowrangpur granted permission to sell the property on Octa:
ber 23, 1963, the property was purchased by the appellant from respondent 3 on January 2, 1964. Prior to that sale the property was
undoubtedly attached in execution proceedings on July 13. 1963 hut
the order of attachment was void, being contrary to the express inhibition contained in Clause 6 of Regulation No. 2 of 1956 read with Rule
4 made thereunder. Both Clause 6 and Rule 4 provide that no immov.
able property belonging to a member of the Scheduled Tribe is liable
to be attached or sold except in accordance with the permission granted
by the competent authority.
Under the registered sale, Ext. 4, executed by respondent 3 in favour of the appellant, the title to the property
vested in the appellant. The appellant having become an owner of the
property on account of the aforesaid private sale, respondent 3 had
no saleable interest left in the property which could be put to sale in
the court auction. It is elementary that what can be brought to sale
in a court sale is the right, title and interest of the juugment-debtor
and therefore, the auction purchaser cm get nothing more than that
iI 'right, title and interest. The judgment-debtor not having any saleable
interest in the property at all on the date of the auction sale, ther'
was nothing that respondent 2 could get in the auction sale which was
•
r
'
'
•
•I
RAGIHUNATH v. DAMODAR (Chandrachud, C.J.)
2 0 I
held in execution of the money decree obtained by his father, respondent 1. The auction sale therefore cannot displace the title of the
ap]Jellant which is the same thing as saying that as betw~en the title
of the appellant and the so called title of the auction purchaser, the
appellant's title must prevail. It must follow that the auction sale is
bad and must b~ ·set aside.
There is an additional reason why the auction sale is not valid .
By the permission granted by the R.D.O., Nowrangpur on October 23,
1963 for sale of the property, one of the conditions imposed on the
judgment-debtor was that the property shall be sold for a sum of Rs.
4,000/-. In the private sale, the appellant purchased the property for
Rs. 4,000/- and therefore the condition of the permission was complied with. But the auction sale was held in satisfaction of the decretal
dues which were far less than Rs. 4,0001-, the decree itself being in
the sum of Rs. 1,000 odd and the highest bid at th~ auction being of
Rs. 3,0001- only. As the condition imposed by the R.D.O. regarding
the prlce was violated by the auction sale, the auction purchaser cannot get a valid title to the property under that sale.
In this view, no question of res judicata can arise because the basic
issue in tbe appeal is as regards the validity of the auction sale iE favour
of respondent 2.
The appellant claims througQ. the judgment-debtor
and neither the latter nor the decree-holder ever disputed that he, the
judgme:nt-debtor, was a member of the Scheduled Tribe. On the other
hand both of them were conscious of the situation that the property
could not be sold without the sanction of the R.D.O., Nowrangpur.
The decree-holder himself apprised the Executing Court of that position. The failure, there, of the judgment-debtor to raise any particnlar contention carmot operate as res judicata, actually or constructively, either against him or against the appellant.
For thes" reasons we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of
the ffigh Court and confirm that of the learned Subordinate Judge,
Korap11t, setting aside the court sale in favour of respondent 2.
There
will be nm order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
S.R.
14-817SCif/8
A
c.
D
E
F
G