New Delhi, Nov. 25 - The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a 2009 Madras High Court ruling that had invalidated a 2002 court-ordered property auction in Chennai. The hearing, though short, carried an unmistakable sense of finality, with the Bench noting that the dispute had been stretched far beyond what the law intended. One lawyer even murmured that “execution proceedings shouldn’t last longer than the original case,” and several judges nodded in agreement.
Background
The legal tussle began in 1995, when lender Rasheeda Yasin sued Komala Ammal and her son, K.J. Prakash Kumar, for failing to repay a ₹2 lakh loan. The suit was decreed in 1997, and by the time execution proceedings started in 1998, the amount had swelled to nearly ₹5 lakh.
Read also: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Agra Man After Nearly Three Years in Jail, Flags Long Delay in Hearing
To recover the dues, a residential property in Choolai, Chennai-roughly 2,120 sq. ft.-was attached and eventually auctioned on September 12, 2002. G.R. Selvaraj purchased the house for ₹11.03 lakh and later received a sale certificate. After Selvaraj’s death, the appeal continued through his legal heirs.
The judgment debtors challenged the sale, arguing that the entire property need not have been sold and that courts should have explored selling only a portion. The High Court accepted that reasoning in 2009, calling the sale unfair and directing the process to restart.
Court’s Observations
During arguments, the Bench closely examined whether the debtors had raised objections at the right time. Justice Sanjay Kumar repeatedly asked counsel, “If they attended hearings and received notices, why didn’t they object before the sale proclamation?”
Read also: Urgent Mentions Only Through Written Slips Except in 'Extraordinary' Cases, CJI Surya Kant Clarifies
The Court stressed that Order XXI Rule 90(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure prevents judgement debtors from challenging a sale on grounds they could have raised earlier. The bench observed, “They were put on notice at every stage… Having failed to act then, they cannot now expect the courts to reopen a sale from 2002.”
The judges also pointed out that the debtors had participated in earlier instalment requests and upset-price reduction hearings, and later chose not to appear. That silence, the Court said, amounted to acquiescence.
Another key remark came when the Bench cautioned against burdening courts decades later. “A purchaser who paid and took possession cannot be dragged endlessly,” one judge noted, hinting at the real-world consequences of delayed litigation.
Read also: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against Aurangabad Lawyer, Says Relationship Was
Decision
Concluding that the High Court overlooked the statutory bar under Order XXI Rule 90(3), the Supreme Court restored the original sale, affirmed the Chennai appellate court’s 2007 order, and upheld the execution court’s 2004 dismissal of the debtor’s challenge.
The appeal was allowed, and the Court ended the matter there, declining to impose costs.
Case Title: G.R. Selvaraj (Dead) through LRs. vs. K.J. Prakash Kumar & Others
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 8887 of 2011
Case Type: Civil Appellate – challenge to execution sale/auction validity
Decision Date: November 25, 2025
