High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging a court auction sale as defective and untimely. Petitioner, who bought the property with knowledge of the attachment order, failed to file within the mandated 60-day period, warranting dismissal.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition closed. No costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3381 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDER RESERVED ON : 13.02.2020
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 19.02.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3381 of 2012
and
M.P.No.1 of 2012
1.Vanaja
2.Jaya
3.Sarasu ... Petitioners
...Versus...
M.Gunasekaran (Died)
1.Gopal
2.Ramasamy
Vasantha (Died)
3.Chinnapappa
4.Chandrasekaran
5.Gopu
6.Gokila
7.Kandasamy
8.Kaliammal
9.K.Vishavanathan (died)
10.K.Nagan
11.K.Muthuraman
12.P.Krishnan (Died)
13.Illangovan
14.Mrs.Anadhi
15.Mr.Naveen
16.Mrs.Paveya
17.Janagi
1/7
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3381 of 2012
18.Mr.Ramesh
19.Lavainya 20.Bhvana
[RR14 to 16 brought on record as LRs of the deceased R9 viz.,K.Vishvanathan vide Court order dated 03.02.2017 made in C.M.Ps.1083 to 1088/2017 in C.R.P.No.3381/2012(MVMJ)]
RR17 to 20 brought on record as LRs of the deceased R12 viz., P.Krishnan vide Court order dated 03.02.2017 made in C.M.Ps.1083 to 1088/2017 in C.R.P.No.3381/2012 (MVMJ)]
... Respondents
PRAYER:This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Harur, dated 31.07.2012 in REA.No.35 of 2012 in REP.No.9 of 2008 in O.S.No.81 of 1997.
For Petitioner :: Mr.A.Ilaya Perumal
For R1 :: Mr.D.Thirumoorthy
For R2&3,9to11 :: No appearance
For R13 :: Mr.P.Valliappan
O R D E R
The third party/claim petitioner in E.P proceedings, is the revision petitioner herein.
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3381 of 2012
the respondents 7, 9 to 14 are Judgment Debtors. The 15th respondent is the auction purchaser.
1997 before the Sub-Court, Dharmapuri for recovery of money due on the two suit pro-notes one for Rs.10,000/- and another for Rs.50,000/-.
The suit was decreed for Rs.10,417/- and Rs.51,625/- respectively.
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3381 of 2012
the subject matter of the property was sandwiched to his property, he is handing the property for better administration and he was ready and willing to pay the amount to the tune of Rs.4 lakhs. Though the money decree is Rs.86,443/-, even calculated the interest upto date, does not
cross Rs.4 lakhs.
same, since, he has taken the property in the Court auction as early as 2011.
of the third party/claim petitioner by the judgment debtor was on 19.08.1997 by virtue of 3 sale deeds. Admittedly, an interim order of attachment was passed by the Civil Court during pendency of the suit which was 31.07.1987. The same has been effected in the Sub-Registrar office records on 04.08.1997 and thus, on the date of the sale in favour of the petitioner herein, namely 19.08.1997, there is a valid order of attachment by the civil Court and the same is duly reflected in the Sub-Registrar office records and its Encumbrance Certificate and thus, the petitioner has purchased the property having notice of order of attachment.
4/7
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3381 of 2012
auction purchase.
respondent herein is the Court auction purchaser and he had originally filed an application in R.E.A.22 of 2012 against the respondents 1 to 14 herein for delivery of possession of the petition property based upon the sale certificate. Neither the decree holder nor the judgment debtor has
made any objection in this petition.
that the interim order of attachment passed by the Court was duly reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate and therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that the petitioner has purchased the property with the knowledge that the property is attached by the Court order. This petition
is challenging the Court auction sale on the ground of irregularity for the same. The petition has to be filed within 60 days. The petition has been filed beyond 650 days. Besides the petitioner having purchased the
5/7
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3381 of 2012
property knowing fully well about the order of attachment, cannot claim equity and hence, looking at from any angle, the order passed by the trial Court cannot be interfered with.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
19.02.2020
nvi
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Order:Yes/No
To
The Subordinate Judge of Harur
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3381 of 2012
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,
nvi
order in
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3381 of 2012 and
M.P.No.1 of 2012
19.02.2020
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil revision petition challenging a court auction sale filed beyond the 60-day period specifying a valid ground of irregularity can be entertained.
Whether the petitioner who purchased the property knowing of the attachment order can claim equity to set aside the sale.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Vanaja
Jaya
Sarasu
M.Gunasekaran (Died)
Gopal
Ramasamy
Rmt. Teekaa Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
