Dismissed

Gopakumar P.K. v. M/S Arjun Amaravathi Chits(P) LTD.NO.30

Kerala HC15 Jan 2024OP(C)/1903/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judgment debtors challenged rejection of their objection to execution sale valuation of their property, relying on a revised fair value notification. The court held such notification cannot govern Order XXI Rule 66 proceedings and that sale irregularities must be challenged under Order XXI Rule 90, which remedy the petitioners had already availed. Petitions dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Gopakumar P.K. Vs M/S Arjun Amaravathi Chits(P)… — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 25TH POUSHA, 1945

¶5

OP(C) NO. 1903 OF 2023

¶6

(CHALLENGING THE ORDER PASSED IN E.A. NO.258/2023 IN EP 170/2016 IN ARC

¶7

NO.604/2015 DATED 04.07.2023 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR

¶8

PETITIONERS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS 2 & 3:

¶9

1GOPAKUMAR P.K.
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O KUTTAPPAN, POOVANTH HOUSE, THATTARATHIL, MURIYAMANGALAM
KARA, MAMALA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682305

¶10

2SWAPNA
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O GOPAKUMAR, POOVANTH HOUSE, THATTARATHIL, MURIYAMANGALAM
KARA, MAMALA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682305

¶11

BY ADVS.
P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN
K.R.PRATHISH
JOEL CHALAMANA
S.UNNIKRISHNAN (NELLAD)
KRISHNA DAS

¶12

RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR 1:

¶13

1M/S ARJUN AMARAVATHI CHITS(P) LTD.NO.30
LTD.NO.30,KUTCHERY ROAD,MYLAPORE,CHENNAI-600004
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, P. MADHAVAN KUTTY
S/O T. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, AGED 50 YEARS , PIN - 682306
2V.P. ANILKUMAR
S/O V.V. PARAMESHARAN VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, ELOOR P.O.
THRIPUNITHURA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682306
BY ADVS.
GEORGE CHERIAN
P.T.MOHANKUMAR(K/78/1983)
RAJESH CHERIAN KARIPPAPARAMBIL(K/000301/1995)
RAM MOHAN(K/2812/2023)

¶14

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.01.2024, ALONG

¶15

WITH OP(C).1892/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O.P.(C.) No.1903 & 1892 of 2023

¶17

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶21

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 25TH POUSHA, 1945

¶22

OP(C) NO. 1892 OF 2023

¶23

(CHALLENGING THE ORDER PASSED IN E.A. NO.260/2023 IN EP 171/2016 IN

¶24

ARC NO.603/2015 DATED 04.07.2023 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR

¶25

PETITIONERS / JUDGMENT DEBTORS 2 & 3:

¶26

1GOPAKUMAR P.K.

¶27

AGED 52 YEARS

¶28

S/O KUTTAPPAN, POOVANTH HOUSE, THATTARATHIL,
MURIYAMANGALAM KARA, MAMALA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682305

¶29

2SWAPNA

¶30

AGED 45 YEARS

¶31

W/O GOPAKUMAR, POOVANTH HOUSE, THATTARATHIL,

¶32

MURIYAMANGALAM KARA, MAMALA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682305

¶33

BY ADVS.

¶34

P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN
K.R.PRATHISH

¶35

JOEL CHALAMANA

¶36

KRISHNA DAS

¶37

RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR 1:

¶38

1ARJUN AMARAVATHI CHITS (P) LTD.NO.30,
KUTCHERY ROAD, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED OFFICER, P. MADHAVAN KUTTY, S/O T. VELAYUDHAN
NAIR, AGED 50 YEARS., PIN - 600004

¶39

2V.P. ANILKUMAR
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O V.V. PARAMESHARAN, VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, ELOOR
P.O.,THRIPUNITHURA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682306

¶40

BY ADVS.

¶41

GEORGE CHERIAN
P.T.MOHANKUMAR(K/78/1983)
RAJESH CHERIAN KARIPPAPARAMBIL(K/000301/1995)
RAM MOHAN(K/2812/2023)

¶42

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.01.2024,

¶43

ALONG WITH OP(C).1903/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶44

O.P.(C.) No.1903 & 1892 of 2023

¶45

¶46

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶47

O.P.(C.) Nos.1903 & 1892 of 2023

¶48

Dated this the 15^th day of January, 2024

¶49

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶50

The petitioners are judgment debtors 2 and 3 in E.P. Nos.170/2016 and 171/2016, the first of which arising from A.R.C. No.604/2015 and the second, from A.R.C. No.603/2015. Both Execution Petitions are

¶51

pending before the Munsiff’s Court, North Paravur.

¶52

In both these Original Petitions, Ext.P5 order

¶53

is under challenge, which rejected the petitioners’ objection, specific to the effect that the entire property is not required for satisfying the decree debt, inasmuch as the property would fetch a price of Rs.4,00,000/- per cent, as against Rs.10,00,000/- reckoned for the entire extent of 11 cents.

¶54

¶55

O.P.(C.) No.1903 & 1892 of 2023

¶56

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶57

and the respondents.

¶58

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the property in question would fetch a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- per cent and 11 cents of property would fetch Rs.44,00,000/-, whereas the property has been ordered to be sold for Rs.10,00,00/-. It was also pointed out that in April, 2023, the fair value notification has been revised by the Government, as per which, the property would fetch Rs.4,00,000/- per cent.

¶59

Per contra, this application was seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, by pointing out that a subsequent fair value notification by the Government for the purpose of stamp duty cannot govern the proceedings under Order 21, Rule 66 made much earlier. It was also pointed out that the sale has been effected and the property has been purchased by the decree holder. All what is stayed is the confirmation of the sale. Learned counsel also pointed out that the

¶60

¶61

O.P.(C.) No.1903 & 1892 of 2023

¶62

petitioners herein have preferred petitions under Order 21, Rule 90 challenging the sale and going by the

¶63

dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sundararajan v. Rajendran [AIR (1981) SCC 693], all irregularities and fraud committed in the process of conducting or publishing the sale can be challenged under Order 21, Rule 90, wherefore the instant objections can also be considered therein.

¶64

Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this court finds little merit in both the Original Petitions preferred. Primarily, this Court finds that no material has been placed by the petitioners before the Executing Court to show that the subject property would fetch a vale of Rs.4,00,000/- per cent. A subsequent fair value notification for the purpose of stamp duty, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, cannot be pressed into service to show that the market value of property is much higher than the one fixed by the Executing Court. That apart,

¶65

O.P.(C.) No.1903 & 1892 of 2023

¶66

¶67

this Court also finds merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that irregularities at the stage of Order 21, Rule 66 in the matter of publishing or conducting the sale can be challenged under Order 21, Rule 90, which remedy has been already been availed by the petitioners herein.

¶68

In the circumstances, these Original Petitions fail and the same would stand dismissed.

Sd/-

C. JAYACHANDRAN

JUDGE

SKP/15-01

O.P.(C.) No.1903 & 1892 of 2023

¶74

¶75

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1892/2023

¶76

`PETITIONERS’ EXHIB`	`ITS:`
`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION DATED 13-` `07-2016 FILED AS E.P.NO.171/2016 IN ARC` `603/2015 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT N.PARAVUR IS` `PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P1`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 07-02-2023` `FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS 2 & 3` `IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P2.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE ISSUED DATED 20-` `06-2023 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS` `EXHIBIT P3.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 27-06-` `2023 FILED BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT N.PARAVUR AS` `E.A. NO. 260/2023 IN E.P. 171/2016 IN ARC` `603/2015 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS` `EXHIBIT P4.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04-07-2023 PASSED` `BY THE MUNSIFF COURT N.PARAVUR IN E.A. NO.` `260/2023 IN E.P. 171/2016 IN ARC 603/2015 IS` `PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P5.`
`RESPONDENTS’ ANNEX`	`URES:`
`ANNEXURE R1(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION, EA NO.348/2023 FOR` `SETTING ASIDE THE SALE, UNDER ORDER XXL, RULE` `90`
`ANNEXURE R1(B)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACTS OF RECORD OF` `PROCEEDINGS FROM THE E-COURTS WEBSITE IN E.P.` `NO 171/2016 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT,NORTH` `PARAVUR`

¶77

O.P.(C.) No.1903 & 1892 of 2023

¶78

¶79

¶80

`PETITIO`	`NERS’`	`EXHIBITS:`
`EXHIBIT`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION DATED 13-` `07-2016 FILED AS E.P.NO.170/2016 IN ARC` `604/2015 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT N.PARAVUR IS` `PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P1`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 21-11-2022` `FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS 2 & 3` `IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P2.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE ISSUED DATED 21-` `06-2023 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS` `EXHIBIT P3.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 27-06-` `2023 FILED BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT N.PARAVUR AS` `E.A. NO. 258/2023 IN E.P. 170/2016 IN ARC` `604/2015 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS` `EXHIBIT P4.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED PASSED BY THE` `MUNSIFF COURT N.PARAVUR IN E.A. NO. 258/2023 IN` `E.P. 170/2016 IN ARC 604/2015 IS PRODUCED` `HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P5.`

¶81

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶82

TRUE COPY

¶83

P.A. TO JUDGE

Gopakumar P.K. v. M/S Arjun Amaravathi Chits(P) LTD.NO.30

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gopakumar P.K. v. M/S Arjun Amaravathi Chits(P) LTD.NO.30

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annamma Thomas Vs P.K.Padmavalliyamma

Vijayan Vs M. C. Joseph

Dr.Indu G.Nair Vs T.Mohanan

Kolathumkunnummal Kunhekkan, Vs Ganapathikandy Kunhiraman

Thushara Kannan.K Vs Rajesh Kumar. R

Anjali Rajeevan Vs Sarath Chandran.R