Jugalkishore Saraf vs Raw Cotton Co.

Ltd on 7 March, 1955

In this above case the court has also took the main reasoning of the section 8 of TPA which says
that  In this connection it is significant that the residuary item covered "All properties to which
the vendors are entitled" and not all properties to which they might in future become entitled.
The court added to this that whatso ever will be included in the interest of the party who is
selling the property or other thing will also have to transfer all the others parts which are attached
to that particular property as the interes of that particular property lies with its attachment and
cannot be denied.

In Basavaya v. Hanumantha Reddy (1944) 2 M.L.J. 46 : I.L.R. (1945) Mad. 211, 212, the
following principle was laid down by this Court:

There can be doubt that if a person during the course of execution proceedings does not raise an
objection to the sale of property which, if raised, would prevent the property from being brought
to sale, he is debarred by the principle of constructive res judicata from raising that same
objection either in subsequent proceedings or at a subsequent stage in the same execution
proceedings

Chhatradharilal Gangaram ... vs Shyamabai Ramsewaklal Agrawal on 30

April, 1965

In this case the court said that - Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act enacts, inter alia, that a
transfer of property passes forthwith to the transferee all the interest which the transferor is then
capable of passing in the property, and in the legal incidents thereof; such incidents include,
where the property is land, all things attached to the earth. But, by virtue of Section 2(d) of that
Act, transfers in invitum are saved from the application of that section. Except Section 57 and
Chapter IV, nothing affects a transfer in execution of a decree.

Further more - No doubt "immoveable property" as defined in Section 3(26) of the General
Clauses Act, includes land, benefits to arise out of the land and the things attached to the earth,
etc., so that standing crops would be immoveable property. But that definition is superseded by
special definition contained in Section 2(13) of the Code of Civil Procedure –‘moveable propert
includes growing crops’. Therefore for the purpose of Code of Civil Procedure moveable
property includes growing crops

Indeed, it cannot be legitimately contended that on sale of land, movables belonging to the
judgment-debtor and placed on it for the time being, are automatically sold and will pass to the
purchaser along with the land. For instance, if the judgment-debtor had collected corn, or had
stacked grass or wood or had parked his car or had stored machinery, none of these things
would pass to the purchaser merely because the land has been sold. Growing crops being
chattel within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure, the property will not, ipso facto,
pass to the purchaser of the land, unless it is specifically sold along with it. The question
what was actually sold is always one of fact. The answer must depend upon such
considerations as what was put for sale; what was intended by the Court to be sold
and what the purchaser understood that he was buying and paid for the same.

In Abdul Aziz Khan Sahib v. Appayasami Naicker, 31 Ind App 1 (PC), their
Lordships of the Privy Council held that the question as to the extent of the property and
the interest of judgment-debtor therein sold, depends upon what the Court intended to sell
and the purchaser understood he bought. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, referring to
certain decteions of the Privy Council, observed in S.M. Jakati v. S. M. Borker AIR 1959
SC 282, that the query in decided cases has been as to what was put up for sale and was
sold and what the purchaser had reason to think he was buying in execution of the decree.

"Where the right, title and interest of a judgment-debtor are set up for sale in execution of a
decree as to what passes to the auction-purchaser is a question of fact in each case dependent
upon what was the estate put up for sale, what the Court intended to sell and what the purchaser
intended to buy and did buy and what he paid for."