Article 99: (Art. 12 of the Act of 1908):
The period of limitation for a suit to set aside a sale by a civil or revenue Court or a sale for arrears of Government revenue or for any demand recoverable as such arrears is one year and the limitation period commences when the sale is confirmed or would otherwise have become final and conclusive had no such suit been brought.
Image Source: ww2.kqed.org
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Any suit to set aside sales by civil or revenue Courts or sale for arrears of Government revenue or for any amount recoverable as such arrears attracts the Article 99. In Mallikarjun v. Narhari, (ILR 25 Bom. 337) it has been held that the Article 99 is not restricted to sales in execution of money decrees only but applies to sales on the basis of the mortgage decrees also.
The Art. 99 applies only to those cases where the sale would be binding on the plaintiff if not set aside. Sale has to be set aside by a person only if it is binding upon him unless and until it is set aside.
Art. 99 applies when the sale is voidable and not void. In Chinnakanu v. Paramasiva, (AIR 1927 Mad. 1135), it has been held that when it is alleged that the decree-holder purchased the property in Court auction without the permission of the Court, the sale being voidable attracts the Art. 99.
In Nahar Singh v. Takchand, (AIR 1952 All. 184), it has been held that a suit for possession by setting aside the execution sale and decree passed on the basis of the award given by the Arbitration on a reference by Court without obtaining permission by the guardian of the minor by a party to the suit entering into such a reference attracts the Article 99.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In Nagabhatta v. Nagappa, (AIR 1923 Bom. 62), it has been held that when the house which was not mortgaged by the deed of mortgage was sold by mistake in execution of the decree for recovery of mortgage debt under the said mortgage deed, the sale is voidable and a suit may be filed to set aside such sale and to such a suit the Art. 99 is attracted.
In Ram v. Hari, (AIR 1950 Bom. 346), it has been held that the Art. 99 does not apply to sale held by the Court or the Collector without jurisdiction because sale in such a case is void and not voidable.
In I. Ebrahim v. M. Cheriyan, (AIR 1956 TC 70), it has been held that when the minor’s property had been sold in a proceeding in which he had not been properly represented the sale it altogether void and the suit filed by the minor on attaining majority to recover the property sold does not attract the Art. 99 as the sale is void.
A suit to set aside sale of immovable property for arrears of Government revenue or any demand recoverable as such arrears attracts Art. 99.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Under Art. 99, time of limitation begins to run from the date of confirmation of sale only in those cases in which conformation of sale is required under the law under which the sale is held and in other cases from the date on which the sale becomes otherwise final and conclusive by the law under which it is held.