19 February 2024 Property Law >> Civil & Consumer Law  

A recent court case in India highlights the complexities that can arise in property disputes, particularly when dealing with pro forma parties and pending appeals. The case involves an auctioned property and the release of title deeds. The Petitioner, who purchased the property at auction, sought a court order directing the bank (Respondent) to release the title deeds. However, there was a twist. The auction sale was challenged in an appeal filed by two deceased individuals (Respondent Nos. 3 & 4) whose legal representatives were involved later.

Facts:

• A Writ Petition (W.P.(C) 10710/2021) was filed seeking an order to release the title deeds of a property (subject property) to the Petitioner (auction purchaser).
• The Petitioner had purchased the subject property in an auction sale confirmed in February 2008.
• The deceased Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had filed an appeal (Appeal No. 09/2008) challenging the auction sale. This appeal was later renumbered as Transfer Appeal No. 36/2022.
• Respondent No. 4 passed away on February 25th, 2015, and her legal representatives were substituted in the appeal proceedings on July 20th, 2015. Respondent No. 3 passed away on April 21st, 2021, and an application for substitution of his legal representatives was filed before DRT-I on August 11th, 2022 (pending adjudication).
• The Petitioner informed the court during the writ petition hearing on November 8th, 2021 that they would notify any subsequent purchaser about the pending appeal.
• The Petitioner subsequently sold the subject property to five (5) purchasers (now Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6).

Conclusions:

• The court found that the legal representatives of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were not necessary parties to the writ petition since no directions were sought against them.
• The court did not find any suppression by the petitioner regarding the pending appeal.
• The court’s order dated November 8th, 2021, requiring the release of title deeds to the petitioner, was valid despite the mistake made by Respondent No. 1 regarding the appeal abatement.
• The court considered the apprehension of the applicants (representatives of deceased respondents) regarding the Petitioner not informing subsequent purchasers about the appeal to be unfounded.
• The court declined to recall the order dated November 8th, 2021 and further the court directed DRT-I to decide the pending appeal (Transfer Appeal No. 36/2022) within three months.
• The court dismissed the contempt petition filed against the Petitioner.