Allowed

Murugaperumal, v. Bala Ganesan, S/O. Kailasam

Madras HC2 Feb 2024CRP(MD)/1479/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court held that forfeiture of auction purchase money is discretionary under CPC not mandatory. Court allowed the revision petition, directing refund of deposited sale price, noting the purchaser attempted to seek an extension for stamp papers.

What did the court decide?

Refund of the sale price deposited by the Petitioner to be ordered within four weeks of the order.

Murugaperumal, Vs Bala Ganesan, S/O. Kailasam — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED : 02.02.2024

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶5

C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1479 of 2013

¶6

Murugaperumal ... Petitioner/Auction Purchaser/ Third Party .Vs. 1.Bala Ganesan ...Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff/ decree holder 2.Annamalai 3.Muppidathi ...Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants-Judgment Debtors

¶7

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order made in E.P.No. 24 of 2010 in O.S.No.98 of 2009, dated 26.09.2011, on the file of Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram.

¶8

For Petitioner : MrJ.Ashok for M/s.Jeyapaul Associates

¶9

For Respondents : No appearance

¶10

1/6

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order made in E.P.No.24 of 2010 in O.S.No.98 of 2009, dated 26.09.2011, on the file of Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram.

¶14

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶15

3.The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed by the Executing Court to refund the sale price deposited by the Petitioner.

¶16

4.The short point to be considered in the instant Civil Revision Petition

¶17

is whether the sale price paid by the Petitioner herein could be forfeited on account of the non- submission of the stamp papers?

¶18

5.In this regard, it is relevant to refer to Order 21 Rule 86 of the Civil Procedure Code, which reads as under:

¶19

2/6

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

‘’ 86.Procedure in default of payment :- In default of payment within the period mentioned in the last preceding rule, the deposit may, if the Court thinks fit, after defraying the expesnes of the sale, be forfeited to the Government, and the property shall be resold, and the defaulting purhaser shall forfeit all claim to the property to any part of the sum for which it may subsequently be sold.’’

¶22

6.Rule 85 of Order 21 C.P.C.,speaks about the payment of the full purchase money. However, by virtue of Tamil Nadu Amendment, it is incumbent upon the auction purchaser to deposit the full money and also to submit the stamp papers or the money equivalent to the stamp paper.

¶23

7.While perusing the order passed by the trial Court, the auction purchaser has moved an application for extension of time to submit the stamp papert. However, the trial Court found that it has no power to extend the time for submitting the stamp paper. However, this Court in catena of judgments has held that the Executing Court is competent to extend the time in submitting the stamp papers for getting the sale certificate however the trial Court cannot extend time in payment of the remaining sale price. Even in the judgment in C.Muthammal 3/6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

and others .vs. R.Kannan and others reported in MANU/TN/4576/2023, this Court has taken a similar view. Further, while perusing Section 86 of C.P.C, forfeiting of the amount is not mandatory and it is only directory, as the directory context could be inferred through word ‘may’ mentioned in Rule 86 of C.P.C.

¶26

8.Therefore, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, more particularly, the attempt made by the Petitioner to seek extension of time for submitting the stamp papers, this Court deem it fit and appropriate to hold that the order passed by the Executing Court forfeiting the sale price is not in consonance with law. Hence, this Court wants to interfere with the order of the trial Court.

¶27

9.Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the trial Court is directed to refund the sale price deposited by the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There is no order as to costs.

¶28

02.02.2024

¶29

4/6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶32

vsn

¶33

¶34

1.The Sub-Judge, Ambasamudram.

¶35

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶36

5/6

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

vsn

ORDER MADE IN

C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1479 of 2013

¶42

02.02.2024

¶43

6/6

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Murugaperumal, v. Bala Ganesan, S/O. Kailasam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugaperumal, v. Bala Ganesan, S/O. Kailasam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnamma Vs a.Sreemathi

Ayyakutty Vs S.Perumal (Died)

U.Delhousi Prabhu (Aged 32 Yrs Vs v.Pandimuthu (Died)(Aged 50 Yrs)

S.M.Govinda Thevar (Died) Vs P.Lakshmi

Smt.B.Gandhi Ammal Vs Selvi

Solachi Vs Rabiya Beevi (Died)