Bc.Munirathinam Naidu,(Died) Vs the Official Assignee of

(P2 to P4, brought on record as LRs of the deceased Sole Appellant viz (Munirathinam Naidu) vide order Of Court dated 30.6.2023 made in CMP.521, 839 to 842/12 in OSA.29 of 1992 by SSSRJ & CKJ)

¶15

... APPELLANTS

¶16

Vs

¶17

1

¶18

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

¶19

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶20

1 THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE OF

¶21

MADRAS HIGH COURT MADRAS-104.

¶22

2 MR.N.VISWANATHAN

¶23

S/O.LATE NAGALINGAM NO.3 VALLUVAR ROAD RANI ANNA NAGAR ARUMBAKKAM CHENNAI-106.

¶24

(R2 SUO MOTO IMPLEADED AS PARTY VIDE ORDER OF COURT DATED.13.6.23)

¶25

3 Malarvizhi

¶26

4 Yami

¶27

5 Stepan Prasana Kumar

¶28

6 Indira Kumari

¶29

7 Ramesh

¶30

8 Sekar

¶31

9 Sakthival

¶32

10 Kala

¶33

11 Vijaya

¶34

12 R. Paneerselvam

¶35

13 Navaneetham

¶36

14 Manikandan

¶37

15 Annamal

¶38

16 Uttami

¶39

17 Gunasekaran

¶40

18 Vasuki

¶41

19 Govindaswamy

¶42

20 Anbazhagan

¶43

21 Gandhimathi

¶44

22 Kalavathi

¶45

23 Murali

¶46

24 Kamachi

¶47

25 Muthu

¶48

26 Jothi

¶49

27 Poongavanam

¶50

28 Jayaraj

¶51

29 Rani

¶52

2

¶53

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

¶54

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶55

30 Mandram

¶56

31 PunithaAnthoniyarAllayam ( Church) Represented by Fr.wilson Old D. No. Valluvar Road Rani Anna Nagar ArumbakkamAminjikarai Taluk Chennai600 106.

¶57

32 K. Jayaraman

¶58

33 Radha

¶59

34 Karunanidhi

¶60

35 Lakshmi

¶61

36 Sundaresan

¶62

37 Kumaravel

¶63

38 Anantha Babu

¶64

39 Manikandan

¶65

40 P. Viji

¶66

41 N.Revathi

¶67

42 Saroja

¶68

43 Rubavathi

¶69

44 Yesudoss

¶70

45 Kalavathi

¶71

46 Sampath

¶72

47 Manjula

¶73

48 Vijaya Kumar

¶74

49 Kalavathi

¶75

50 Anjali Devi

¶76

51 Vasanthi

¶77

52 Soloman

¶78

53 Temple Arulmigu Sri Kanniga Parameshwari Temple Poompukkar Street ArumbakkamAminjikarai Taluk Chennai - 600 106. 54 P.V. Santhanam

¶79

55 Ananthi

¶80

3

¶81

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

¶82

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶83

56 Tamilmani

¶84

57 R. Nagaraj

¶85

58 Kannappari

¶86

59 T Kumar

¶87

60 lndrani Rani

¶88

61 Jeevitha

¶89

62 Ponnammal

¶90

63 Kamatchi

¶91

64 Prabhu

¶92

65 Ganeshan

¶93

66 Malathi

¶94

67 Venkatesan

¶95

68 Santhakumar

¶96

69 Padma kumari

¶97

70 Sundararajan

¶98

71 Murugammal

¶99

72 Amutha

¶100

73 Santhi

¶101

74 Munniyammal

¶102

75 Muniyandi

¶103

76 Sarath Kumar

¶104

77 Suba

¶105

78 Ratha

¶106

79 Amudha

¶107

80 Kumaran

¶108

81 Vimala

¶109

82 Saroja

¶110

83 Ravathi

¶111

84 Anthoniammal

¶112

85 Mary

¶113

86 Thersa

¶114

87 Parimala

¶115

88 Kalaivanee

¶116

89 Jayarj

¶117

90 Lane

¶118

91 Srinivasan

¶119

92 Nithya

¶120

4

¶121

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

¶122

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶123

93 Pokkisam Mari

¶124

94 Rani James

¶125

95 Kamaraj 96 Kiyan Raj

¶126

97 Ramalingam

¶127

98 Dhagala Ram

¶128

99 Dinesh

¶129

100 Kalaivani

¶130

101 Sri Sakthi VinayagarAlayam Temple MU. Varadharsanar Street ArumbakkamAminjikarai Taluk Chennai600 106.

¶131

102 Bakthavachalam

¶132

103 N.Krishnan

¶133

104 Mohan

¶134

105 Ammu

¶135

106 Anbu

¶136

107 Ravindran

¶137

108 Arputharaj

¶138

109 Manikandan

¶139

110 Srinivasan

¶140

111 Nithish Balaji

¶141

112 Thangaraj

¶142

113 Karthi

¶143

114 Mohan

¶144

115 G.Narayanamurthi

¶145

116 U.K.Natarajan

¶146

5

¶147

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

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

117 Shanmugam

118 M.A.Prabhakaran

119 Dr.Ram Sankar

120 Vinoth

121 Vijay Ganesh

¶154

122 Sridharan

¶155

123 Mr. Ponnaiyan secretary Kavitha Flat owners welfare Association Block B- 17 to 38 Flats AND Block C- 39 to 46 Flats 3rd Street SBI Staff Colony Arumbakkam

¶156

124 Mr. Prakash

¶157

Treasurer Kavitha Flat owners welfare Association Block B- 17 to 38 Flats AND Block C- 39 to 46 Flats 3rd Street SBI Staff Colony Arumbakkam

¶158

125 Rani

¶159

126 U. Queen

¶160

127 D. Usha

¶161

128 A.Venkatesan

¶162

129 R.Mageshwari

¶163

130 G.V. Baskar

¶164

131 R.Chitra

¶165

132 G.Pandurangan

¶166

133 Ramamoorthy

¶167

134 R. Dharani

¶168

135 Uthiramuthu

¶169

136 M.Ramesh

¶170

6

¶171

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

¶172

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶173

137 K. Sridhar

¶174

(RR3 to 137 suo moto impleaded as party respondents vide Order of Court dated 20.1.25 made in CMP.11854/2023 in OSA.29/1992)

¶175

.. Respondents

¶176

Prayer in O.S.A.No. 29 of 1992: Appeal filed under Section 8(2)(b) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, III of 1909 against the judgment and order in Appln.No.417 of 1990 in I.P.No.79 of 1972 made by this Court on 09.04.1991.

¶177

Case Nos.	For Petitioners/Appellants	For Respondents
CMP.No.1	Mr.P.Sheshathri	Mr.J.Balagopal, (for R32,
1854 of 2023	For Mr.V.Jayachandran	R44 and R45) Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar
CMP.Nos.		For Mr.A.Sasidharan
18885 &	Dr.K.Kannan	(for R24, R25, R26, R28,
18886 of		R29, R34, R35, R36,
2023		R37, R38, R39, R40,
		R41, R42, R46, R47, R48, R49, R50, R54, R55, R56, R60 to R82)
		Mr.R.Srinivasan, Senior Counsel For Mr.J.Jayan (for R105, R106, R108, R111, R125

¶178

7

¶179

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

¶180

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶181

		to R134, R136 & R137) Mr.T.Arun Kumar, (for R33) Additional Government Pleader
	Mr.K.V.MuthuVisakan (Legal Aid Counsel for Appellant)
OSA.No.2 9 of 1992	Mr.A.Arumugam, (2^nd Petitioner in OSA.No.29 of 1992)
	Mr.C.P.Sivamohan (for 3^rdAppellant)
	Mr.Sharath Chandran, Amicus Curiae
	Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate Commissioner
	Mr.T.Mohan, Senior Advocate For Mr.C.Ramesh, For Official Assignee

¶182

8

¶183

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

¶184

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶185

JUDGMENT

¶186

Dr.Anita Sumanth J.

¶187

We have heard all learned counsel, who appeared for the parties. We have also had the benefit of the detailed submissions of Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel, who has been appointed as Amicus Curiae in the matter.We place on record our appreciation for him having undertaken the mammoth task of scouring through the various bundles relating to I.P.No.79 of 1972, connected applications and Original Side Appeals. His reports have been of immense benefit in tracing the history of the matter and in assisting us to pen this judgment.

¶188

2.The genesis of these applications is I.P.No.79 of 1972 instituted by Meena Financiers before this Court seeking to have B.C.Munirathinam Naidu adjudged insolvent. The petition was instituted on 05.07.1972 and by an order dated 28.11.1973, C.J.R.Paul, J . held that B.C.Munirathinam Naidu had committed an act of insolvency within the meaning of Section 9(e) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (‘Act’). Hence, B.C.Munirathinam Naidu (‘insolvent’) was adjudged insolvent and that all the estate, comprising largely of 7.89 acres of land

¶189

9

¶190

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

¶191

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶192

in Arumbakkam, and other effects of the said insolvent wherever situate,

¶193

vest in the Official Assignee (‘OA’).

¶194

3.Order dated 28.11.1973 was challenged in O.S.A.No.7 of 1974.

¶195

Though an ad-interim stay granted by the Division Bench on 06.02.1974, the Division Bench directed that filing of schedule of assets and enquiry in relation to the properties shall continue. The O.S.A. was dismissed on 26.04.1977 by T.Ramaprasada Rao, Officiating CJ and S.Suryamurthy J, in B.C.Munirathinam Naidu v M/s. Meena Financiers and another a decision reported in 1977 2 MLJ 399.

¶196

4.SLP(C)No.2646 of 1979 was filed by the Insolvent before the Supreme Court and notice was issued on 09.04.1979 by V.R.Krishna Iyer and R.S.Pathak, J.J., and stay granted.On 08.12.1980 and 29.03.1982, interim directions were issued by the Supreme Court calling for reports and issuing directions for disposal of the properties and wiping out of the debts of the insolvent. The SLP was closed on 22.04.1985 when three Judges of the Supreme Court vacated the stay that was in subsistence then and passed the following order:

¶197

‘......

¶198

25.On 15.07.1984, the encroachers wrote to the OA stating that they were in occupation of the lands in Survey Nos 52, 53 and 54/1, Arumbakkam and agreed to pay a sum

¶199

10

¶200

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

¶201

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶202

of Rs. 14,000 per ground. The offer made by the encroachers were placed before the Supreme Court when the matter was taken up on 22.04.1985. The Supreme Court (Y.V.Chandrachud, CJ, A.P Sen and E.S Venkataramiah, JJ) disposed the matter with the following directions:

¶203

“On July 15, the slum dwellers who were in charge of the property belonging to the insolventpetitioner, made a representation through a letter addressed to the Official Assignee, High Court of Madras, offering him to pay Rs 14,000 per ground for the property relating to item No 4. The Official Assignee will consider the question as to whether sale offer should be accepted and negotiate, if possible, for the price that can be obtained for the property. Mr.T.S Krishnamurthy Iyer, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that he has no objection if the offer made by the slum dwellers for purchasing the property at Rs 14,000/- is accepted by the Official Assignee. After the property is sold and the sale proceeds deposited, the Official Assignee under the directions and supervision of the Insolvency Court will pay the balance dues of the creditors and if there is any balance will pay over to the insolvent-petitioner. The stay order is vacated.

¶204

The Special leave petition will stand disposed of in terms of this order.”

¶205

5.The insolvent filed Application No.300 of 1986 seeking

¶206

annulment of the order of adjudication on the premise that the claims of

¶207

the unsecured creditors had been paid in full and part payment had been made in respect of the secured creditors for which immovable property

¶208

11

¶209

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

¶210

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶211

security had been offered. In that application, the encroachers, who had formed an Association under the name of Rani Anna Nagar Welfare Association (‘Association’) filed Application No.343 of 1986 seeking their impleadment as parties.

¶212

6.The impleadment application was dismissed on 17.08.1987 and in an Appeal filed in O.S.A.No.129 of 1987, the Association was successful under order dated 24.11.1987. Post their impleadment the insolvent and the Association entered into a deed of compromise dated 20.09.1988 that was filed into Court and recorded by S.T.Ramalingam, J. under order dated 20.09.1988.

¶213

7.Under that order, the OA was permitted to sell the land to those occupants of the property at the rate of Rs.28,750/-. As against 95 encroachers who had signed the compromise deed, 89 persons were parties to sale deeds and 6 persons, who had signed the compromise deed did not come forward to purchase the property. The application for annulment of the order of insolvency was allowed on 06.01.1989, wherein, S.T.Ramalingam, J. noted that the insolvent had settled the amount in full to all his creditors.

¶214

12

¶215

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

¶216

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶217

8.B.C.Munirathinam Naidu has, since then, been requesting the OA to handover his property to him. The OA however has taken the stand that the lands have been encroached and it was for B.C.Munirathinam Naidu to deal with the encroachers directly.

¶218

9.A.Nos.417 and 468 of 1990 were filed by B.C.Munirathinam

¶219

Naidu seeking directions to the OA to take necessary steps to put on notice those occupiers who have not purchased the lands to vacate and handover physical possession of the lands to him and further seeking directions against four individuals viz., G.Lakshmanan, L.Nallathai, Mari Ammal and Thirumalai Ammal and the OA to surrender possession of the property that they were occupying to the insolvent.

¶220

10.The applications were contested by the then OA who reiterated that the insolvent ought to be directed to take proceedings against the occupants under the relevant enactments, without recourse to the High Court and the OA. The OA pointed out that insolvency jurisdiction could not be invoked post annulment of order of adjudication of the individual as insolvent. Those applications were dismissed by Maruthamuthu, J. on 09.04.1991, assailing which OSA.Nos.28 and 29 of 1992 were filed by the insolvent.

¶221

13

¶222

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

¶223

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶224

11.Miscellaneous Petitions were filed in OSA.No.29 of 1992 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to survey the lands occupied by certain individuals. The applications were contested by the OA who also attributed ulterior motives to the insolvent alleging that the insolvent only wished to create evidence for eviction of the encroachers from his lands.

¶225

12.Two Advocate Commissioners were appointed and reports filed. Only one report of the Advocate Commissioner is available and one report is not traceable per report dated 20.01.2024 of the learned Amicus. Several parties sought impleadment in the matter and reports were also filed by the OA relating to the number of persons who were in occupation of the lands and the extent of lands in their possession.

¶226

13.The OSAs were taken up by the Division Bench on 24.08.1994 and in O.S.A.No.29 of 1992, the Bench noted that the OA had p repared a chart of the occupants of the property that was the subject matter of that OSA. After consulting the parties, including the insolvent, the OA had settled the value of the property in possession of each individual. What remained was only to serve a notice of demand of the sale consideration,

¶227

14

¶228

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

¶229

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶230

so that the same may be realised and steps taken for execution of the

¶231

documents of transfer. The OA was directed to do the same.

¶232

14.It is to be noted that there is typographical error in paragraph 2 of order dated 24.08.1994 and instead of ‘OSA.No.28 of 1992’ it should read ‘OSA.No.29 of 1992’. Effectively, with this, OSA.No.29 of 1992 had come to an end on the basis of the amicable settlement inter se the parties ( between the insolvent and 145 dwellers). The following order had been passed:

¶233

' Except in respect of one property which is involved in O.S.A 28 of 1992 we record with satisfaction the proceeding in OSA No.29 of 1992 has come to an end with an amicable settlement.

¶234

The Official Assignee has already prepared a chart of the occupants of the property in question in OSA 28 of 1992 and after consulting the parties including the insolvent (the owner of the property), settled the value of the property in possession of each individual. He is now required only to serve a notice of demand on the price so fixed by him upon the settlers so that further steps may be taken for the execution of documents of transfer. Let the Official Assignee accordingly issue notice of demand upon each individual settler fixing a time limit for the same and proceed to complete the formalities of sale/transfer of the property on behalf of the insolvent

¶235

15

¶236

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

¶237

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶238

(the owner of the property) no sooner the documents of transfer are properly settled between the parties.

¶239

2.O.S.A No.28 of 1992, however, is required to be disposed of as the appellant therein has chosen to contest the fact that the Official Assignee has ever assumed possession of the property in his occupation and that the insolvent was ever the owner of the property in his possession. He has advanced a case of the purchase of the said property according to him from some one who was the owner of the said property.

¶240

3.Put up O.S.A 28 of 1992 to-morrow from judgment and O.S.A 29 of 1992 shall be posted again after the Official Assignee will comply with the directions as made to-day

¶241

4.Let a copy of this Order be handed over to the Official Assignee by tomorrow.'

¶242

15.OSA.No.28 of 1992 was taken up on 25.08.1994 and the

¶243

following order passed:

¶244

'.... There is an apparent error, in our view, in such approach of the Insolvency Court. A mere glance to the scheme of the law would reveal that the only obligation the insolvent must discharge is to bring to the notice of the insolvent all information about his assets and even if he has reasons to resist, the Assignee is empowered to dispossess him and take possession of all such assets and if some assets are not disclosed by the insolvent but are otherwise not found, the Assignee has a duty to even to take possession of such assets. The course of events in the instant case reveal that the Assignee was informed about the assets which included the properties in possession of

¶245

16

¶246

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

¶247

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶248

the respondents 1 to 4 and that the respondents 1 to 4 do not have any title in them is revealed by the fact that atleast two of them applied to the Assignee for settlement of the very lands. There was no occasion for the respondents to approach the Official Assignee if all concerned were not aware that the lands in possession of the respondents belonged to the appellant and that Official Assignee had legally been in possession thereof. I n course of the hearing of this appeal, we have given adequate opportunity to the respondents to satisfy us that they have any other source of independent title or a right to possess the properties and called upon the present Official Assignee to show whether he can legitimately say that the lands which are occupied by respondents 1 to 4 do not / did not belong to the appellant and that the Assignee has no obligation to deliver such lands which are, after annulment in his hands, to the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show even an iota of evidence except the fact that after squatting upon the land, respondents 1 to 4 have created some amenities for themselves which would show that respondents 1 to 4 have no semblance of title in that property. Official Assignee has reported in detail about the occupation by the respondents 1 to 4 of the lands failing with the assets of the insolvent. Thus respondents 1 to 4 are in occupation of assets which the Official Assignee is obliged to hold and return on annulment of the insolvency to the insolvent.

¶249

2. We do not see any reason when respondents 1 to 4 have appeared before us and claimed independent right to hold the property to leave the matter of eviction of these respondents, for any future litigation. All other squatters, who have come forward and have been found within the scheme of things under which the Official Assignee, on behalf of the insolvent, can transfer lands to them, have been satisfied and for them separate order has been passed by us in O.S.A.No.29 of 1992. A person, who is

¶250

17

¶251

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

¶252

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶253

declared insolvent, suffers not only a disqualification if he is adjudged insolvent but also a scar which remains attached to him even after annulment of the adjudication. The residue of the assets, after satisfying the creditors, must reach him, otherwise the proceeding will be treated as an instrument which caused further loss to the insolvent than the law envisaged. The Official Assignee, the insolvent and other squatters, who are in O.S.A.No.29/92 have been shown sufficient maturity. The respondents 1 to 4 in the instant appeal, however, have chosen to contest but without any legitimacy of their occupation of a property which we have found belonged to the insolvent and was in possession of the Official Assignee. They are liable to be evicted by the Official Assignee. They are liable to be evicted by the Official Assignee. Official Assignee shall not be discharged of his responsibilities until he completes the process of eviction of respondents 1 to 4 and delivers possession of the said property to the appellant. The appeal, for the said reason, is allowed. The Official Assignee is directed to forthwith take steps to evict the respondents and if necessary, to take police aid if any resistance is offered by respondents 1 to 4.’

¶254

16.On a combined reading of orders dated 24.08.1994 passed in

¶255

OSA.No.29 of 1992, and order dated 25.08.1994 passed in OSA.No.28 of 1992, the following aspects are clear. In O.S.A 29 of 1992, the Official Assignee was required to serve a notice of demand on the price fixed by the assignee and further steps were to be taken to execute documents of transfer in favour of 145 persons as per the list of the OA dated 27.07.1994. This was to be done no sooner the documents of transfer are

¶256

18

¶257

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

¶258

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶259

properly settled between the parties. O.S.A. No.29 of 1992 was thereafter to be put up for compliance of the aforesaid directions.

¶260

17.In so far as O.S.A. No.28 of 1992 was concerned, the same was

¶261

allowed, and G.Lakshmanan and 3 others were directed to be evicted by the Official Assignee with police aid, if necessary. O.S.A. No.28 of 1992

¶262

was thereafter to be put up with O.S.A 29 of 1992 for compliance of the aforesaid directions.

¶263

18.The aforesaid orders have become final except in relation to a few individuals. G.Lakshmanan and two others had approached the Supreme Court in SLP(C)No.15330 of 1994. The Supreme Court, by order dated 15.09.1994 stayed the operation of order passed in OSA.No.28 of 1992 on 25.08.1994. Five other encroachers also approached the Supreme Court in SLP(C)No.21077 of 1994 and obtained a stay on 28.11.1994 of the operation of the order of the Division Bench dated 24.08.1994.

¶264

19.SLP(C) No.7841 of 1995 was filed by an encroacher wherein stay was granted on 27.03.1995 in respect of order dated 24.08.1994. Hence, when the matters were listed before the Division Bench of Srinivasan & AR.Lakshmanan JJ they were resisted, and came to be

¶265

19

¶266

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

¶267

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶268

blocked for hearing by order dated 01.08.1995,granting liberty to the parties to obtain appropriate directions from the Supreme Court and have the appeals listed before this Court thereafter.

¶269

20.OSA.No.28 of 1992 then came up on 03.06.2002 before the Division Bench of S.Jagadeesan & K.Raviraja Pandian JJ, they noted that the OSA had already been disposed on 25.08.1994.T he Bench also noted that SLP had been preferred before the Supreme Court and an order had been passed in SLP.No.15530 of 1994 on 21.09.1994. The Court recorded the position that as the appeal had already been disposed on 25.08.1994, no further order was necessary. Likewise, a similar order was passed in OSA.No.29 of 1992 on the same day. When the matters were listed before the Supreme Court on 14.01.2004, they were dismissed as not pressed and stay granted earlier was vacated.

¶270

21.When Civil Appeal No.14874 of 1996 of G.Lakshmanan had come up before the Supreme Court on 17.02.2004, the possession of G.Lakshmanan was protected subject to payment of Rs.7,50,000/- to the OA for onward transmission to the legal representatives of the insolvent.The legal representatives of G.Lakshmanan have also paid the

¶271

20

¶272

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

¶273

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶274

aforesaid amount and sale deeds have been executed. Hence, nothing survives in OSA.No.28 of 1992 for adjudication of compliance.

¶275

22.Based on a letter sent by Sri.K.Ramamoorthy, Senior Advocate,

¶276

Supreme Court to the OA of this Court on 26.02.2004 pointing out that several sale deeds appear to have been executed by the then OA Mr.V.Nallasenapathy between 2004 and 2019, N.Viswanathan, one of the appellants in Civil Appeal No.14874 of 1996 filed Miscellaneous Petitions before this Court. The prayers in those applications was as follows:

¶277

*Application No.*	*Prayer*
CMP.No.521 of 2012	To condone delay of 2855 days in filing of the Restoration Application in O.S.A No.29 of 1992
CMP.No.839 of 2012	To set aside ex parte order of dismissal on 03.06.2002
CMP.Nos.840 of 2012	To condone the delay in filing the application to set aside abatement caused due to the death of B.C Naidu
CMP.Nos.841 of 2012	To set aside the abatement caused due to the death of B.C Naidu
CMP.Nos.842 of 2012	To bring on record the LR's of B.C Naidu in O.S.A No.29 of 1992

¶278

23.As far as N.Viswanathan is concerned, he had originally agreed

¶279

to purchase the property that he had been encroaching and had filed an

¶280

21

¶281

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

¶282

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶283

affidavit before the OA per the directions of the Division Bench passed in OSA.No.29 of 1992 on 24.08.1994. Having done so, he challenged that very order of the Division Bench before the Supreme Court by way of SLP. Once his appeal before the Supreme Court was dismissed, he sought execution of the sale deed in his favour and filed the above five applications.

¶284

24.N otice had been ordered in the petitions and the orders from 25.07.2012 onwards passed by P.Jyothimani and M.Duraiswamy, J.J. and subsequent Benches calling for counters to be filed. Barring the present Petitioner, none of the other proposed parties appeared and no counters have been filed.The counter affidavit and memo filed on behalf of B.M.Purnachandran and the reports of the OA are available on file.

¶285

25.A memo had been filed by Mr.B.M.Purnachandran along with a compilation containing Will of his father, B.C.Muniratnam Naidu dated 29.08.2002 and an order passed in T.O.S.No.24 of 2005 on 25.08.2010 as per which the petitioner would be the sole beneficiary of the subject assets.

¶286

26.In fact, an application in A.No.491 of 2010 had come to be filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the OA to pay a sum of Rs.90

¶287

22

¶288

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

¶289

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶290

lakhs out of the total amount that had been then deposited to the credit of I.P.No.79 of 1972 and V.Ramasubramanian, J ., had ordered the application even as early as on 10.01.2011. In light of this position, there is no doubt in our mind that it is only B.M.Purnachandran, who is the sole beneficiary of the subject assets.

¶291

27.A report was filed by OA Mr.V.Nallasenapathy setting out the status of the matter. The matter was referred on 10.08.2016 for Mediation by S.K.Kaul C.J., and R.Mahadevan J , which failed. Vide order dated

¶292

30.06.2023, a ll the miscellaneous petitions were ordered, and OSA.No.29

¶293

of 1992 was restored to file.

¶294

28.Mr.B.M.Purnachandran, then filed CMP.No.11854 of 2003 on 05.06.2003 seeking directions for removal of encroachments on the lands. The prayer in the CMP is as follows:

¶295

‘For the reasons as stated, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble High Court be pleased to pass an order, directing the respondent to evict all the intruders/encroachers/hut dwellers in the schedule properties, excepts the 173 people, with police aid and vacant physical possession be given to the petitioner/LRs of the Appellant in OSA, as he is the sole beneficiary, apart from directing the respondent to give the particulars, such as the names of persons,

¶296

23

¶297

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

¶298

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶299

extent of the land sold to each of the persons, the amount received from the said persons and copy of the respective sale deeds, including of giving a clear and complete statement of accounts of the estates of the insolvent and release the entire balance payment lying in the said accounts to the petitioner/LRs of the appellant in OSA without any further delay and thus render justice.’

¶300

29.It is seen that this prayer is identical to the prayer in Application

¶301

No.417 of 1990 which has itself been dismissed on 09.04.1991.No doubt that order of dismissal was set aside by the Division Bench on 25.08.1994 in OSA.No.28 of 1992. T he report filed by the OA on 20.04.2023 also makes it clear that it was on the intervention of the Supreme Court and the Division Bench that various settlements have been negotiated by the OA qua individual parcels of land of the subject property and thereafter it was only on the order of the Court and qua five of the parties alone that the OA was directed to negotiate the sale of the property, that the intervention of the OA was required.

¶302

30.M uch water has flown under the bridge thereafter, and the prayer in the Application has been achieved. An Advocate Commissioner had been appointed and the final report filed by Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar,

¶303

24

¶304

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

¶305

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶306

learned Advocate Commissioner dated 17.12.2024 identifies and

¶307

demarcates the parcels of lands as follows:

¶308

*Sl.*	*Old S.Nos*	*Extent*	*Correspondin*	*Name of the Locality*
*No.*			*g T.S.No.*
1.	52	Ac 3.00	Block 22,	Rani Anna Nagar
2.	53/1	Ac 1.17	T.S.No.1/1
3.	54/1	Ac 1.70
4.	143/2	Ac 0.58	Block 11, T.S.No.45	Dr.Ambedkar Nagar
5.	135/3	Ac 0.61	Block 12, T.S.No.1/4	Mu. Varadharasanar Street,
6.	136 part (Eastern Portion)	Ac 0.29	Block 13, T.S.No.1 Pt, 7 Pt, 8, 9	Elangovadigal Street (part), Thiruvallurvar Nagar &Vivekanandhar Street (part)
6a.	136 part (Western Portion)	Ac 0.26	Block 12, T.S.No.1/6, 1/9/1 Pt, 1/9/2	Kavitha street, Kannappan Nagar, which is a Lane abutting Rajiv Gandhi Street and property on west of Vivekanandhar Street (part)
7.	151/1	Ac 0.24	Block 13, T.S.No.21/1, 21/3 & 21/4	3^{rd Street, SBI Staff} Colony, Arumbakkam

¶309

31.The report has annexed therewith, maps as well as pictures of

¶310

the properties and other documents to evidence the status of the properties. Report of the Advocate Commissioner dated 17.12.2024 along

¶311

25

¶312

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

¶313

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶314

with Annexures A to G, numbering in all 1 to 123 pages, is made part and parcel of this order.

¶315

32.We had sought the latest status of the assets of Mr.Munirathinam Naidu including the sale consideration received and the fixed deposits. The following details have been supplied by the OA:

¶316

*I.P.No.79 of 1972 in*	*the estate of B.C.Munirathinam*	*Naidu*
Particulars	Debit Credit	Total
Amount Received by way of Sale consideration towards 89 Sale Deed issued in Phase – I during 1987 – 1989	9,46,539
Amount Received by way of Sale consideration towards 85 Sale Deed issued during 1994-1995	11,960
Amount of the three occupants retained as not yet claimed	3,78,573
Amount received by way of 5 occupants to whom the sale deed has to be executed Rs.61,167/-	61,167
Sale consideration received as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court Order in Civil Appeal No. 14874/1996 dated 25.08.1994	7,50,000

¶317

26

¶318

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

¶319

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶320

Total
Two Fixed Deposits were made on 23-11-2005 *FD-1*Principal Value Rs.5,00,000/- *FD-II*Principal Value Rs. 10,00,000/-	15,00,000
FD-I and FD-II were pre- closed on 21.09.2006 and 05.09.2006 respectively with maturity values FD-I: FD-I Rs.5,20,013/- and FD-II : Rs.10,42,001/-		15,62,014
FD-III was made on 29-09- 2006 for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-	15,00,000
Other expenses	5,432
FD-IV was made on 21-12- 2010 for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-	7,00,000
FD-III was pre-closed on 28-01-2011 and a sum of Rs.20,96,559/- was received towards maturity value		20,96,559
LESS: Amount refunded to Purnachandran legal heir of B.C. Munirathinam Naidu on 31.01.2011 Rs. 19,00,000/-	19,00,000
FD-V was made on 14-03- 2013 for a sum of Rs.2,00,760/	2,00,760

¶321

27

¶322

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

¶323

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶324

FD-IV was pre-closed on 07-01-2014 for a sum of Rs.9,06,131		9,06,131
FD-VI was made on 09-01- 2014 for a sum of Rs.9,06,131/-	9,06,131
As on date only two active fixed deposits (FD-V & FD-VI) are available in this estate. The same were deposited with Indian Bank, High Court Branch. The details of the fixed deposits are enclosed in the *Annexure*.		21,21,115
Available amount			21,21,735
LESS: Reserve (7% Gov. Commission, Legal fees to senior and junior counsels engaged & Publication charges and administrative expenses	3,21,735
Total available amount			18,00,000

¶325

33.A statement of the fixed deposits is as below:

¶326

I.P.No.79/1972 – In the Estate of B.C.Munirathinam Naidu Details of Fixed Deposits

¶327

FD. No.	Date of Deposit	Principal Amount	Date of Maturity	Maturity Amount	Interest Accrued	FD Status
1.	23.11.2005	5,00,000	21.09.2006	5,20,013	20,013	Closed
2.	23.11.2005	10,00,000	05.09.2006	10,42,001	42,001	Closed
3.	29.09.2006	15,00,000	28.01.2011	20,96,559	5,96,559	Closed
4.	21.12.2010	7,00,000	07.01.2014	9,06,131	2,06,131	Closed
5	14.03.2013	2,00,760	29.12.2023	4,08,140	2,07,380	Active
6	09.01.2014	9,06,131	29.12.2023	17,12,975	8,06,844	Active
		Total			18,78,928

¶328

28

¶329

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

¶330

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶331

34.On 18.12.2024, this Court had asked the Secretary, Tamil Nadu

¶332

Legal Services Authority to appoint a counsel to appear for the legal heirs of B.C.Munirathinam Naidu. However, when the matter came up on the next date, the present Bench, which is, hopefully, the last to hear this matter, on perusing the records appreciated that the petitioner in CMP.No.11854 of 2023 -B.M.Purnachandran, is the sole beneficiary to the assets of Late B.C.Munirathinam Naidu that are the subject of this litigation.

¶333

35.At the hearing on 14.02.2025, one Mr.K.V.MuthuVisakan, Legal Aid Counsel, had appeared and sought copies of the relevant papers. This was objected to by learned counsel appearing for Mr.Purnachandranon the ground that the assets forming the subject matter of the insolvency litigation, vested in him. He drew our attention to the order passed in probate jurisdiction in T.O.S.No.24 of 2005 pointing out that his siblings were also part of those proceedings.

¶334

36.We have also adverted to this aspect of the matter in paragraph 13 to 27 above while tracing the trajectory of this matter and referred to the documents and court order that make it clear that this Petitioner is the

¶335

29

¶336

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

¶337

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶338

sole beneficiary of the assets under this litigation. However, and by way of abundant caution, we had also requested the learned Amicus to compare the schedule of assets under the petition filed before the Insolvency Court,with the assets that devolved on the present petitioner under the Will of Mr.B.C.Munirathinam Naidu and report as to whether

¶339

there is a match.

¶340

37.Under supplemental note dated 05.03.2025, learned Amicus has

¶341

stated as follows:

¶342

‘B. WHETHER THE PROPERTIES IN THE I.P WERE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE WILL OF MR. B.C NAIDU

¶343

2. This Hon'ble Court has directed the undersigned to verify whether the properties in the schedule of affairs filed before this Hon'ble Court tallies with the properties stated to have been bequeathed to Mr. Poornachandran by his father late Mr. B.C Naidu under his last will and testament dated 29.08.2000. The following are the items of property in Arumbakkam as set out in the schedule of assets in L.P. No. 79 of 1972:

¶344

Survey	Ac.Cent
No.	s
136	0.55
52	3.00
54/1	1.70
53/1	1.17
95	0.12
135	0.61
143/2	0.58
151/1	0.24

¶345

30

¶346

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

¶347

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶348

Total extent: 7.97 .

¶349

3. Mr. Munirathinam Naidu had executed his last will and testament dated 29.08.2000 bequeathing all his properties to his son B.M Poornachandran. The properties in Arumbakkam are set out in Schedule I. The other properties in Tiruvallur, Adayanampattu and Vempampattu villages are set out in Schedule II, III and IV respectively. Schedule I lists out the following survey numbers:

¶350

Survey Ac.Cents
No.
136 0.55
52 3.00
54/1 1.70
53/1 1.17
135/3 0.61
143/3 0.58
152/3 0.16
*Total extent: 8.66 cents*

¶351

4. A comparison of the schedule of assets filed in IP 79 of 1972 and Schedule I of the Will of Munirathinam Naidu brings out the following discrepancies:

¶352

Survey Nos 95 & 151/1 in the schedule of assets do not find a place in the Will.

¶353

Survey No 152/3 in the Will does not a find a place in the Schedule of Assets

¶354

Survey No 143/2 comprising of 58 cents in the schedule of assets has been described as Survey No 143/3 in the Will.

¶355

5. It is submitted that the records also disclose that B.M Poornachandran had filed a petition before this Hon'ble Court

¶356

31

¶357

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

¶358

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶359

in OP 244 of 2004 seeking letters of administration in respect of the estate of his father Mr. B.C Naidu under his last Will and Testament. The elder son of B.C Naidu, Mr. Nithyanandan, who was examined in open court before Mr. Justice Periya Karuppiah on 25.08.2010 has consented to the grant of letters of administration in favour of his brother Mr. B.M Poornachandran.

¶360

6. In his application before this Hon'ble Court in Application 417 of 1990 (out of which the instant appeal arises), Mr. B.C Naidu has sought possession of the following items of property from the Official Assignee:

¶361

S.No.	Survey No.	Extent
1.	136 (part)	0.29 out of 0.79 (Western portion)
2.	136 (part)	0.29 out of 0.75 (Eastern portion)
3.	52	3.00
4.	53/1	1.17
5.	54/1	1.70
6.	95/4	0.12
7.	140	0.89
8.	152/3	0.16
9.	135/3	0.61
10	143/2	0.58
	Total	8.78 acres

¶362

7. It is submitted that Survey Nos 140 and 152/3 were sold by B.C Naidu prior to 1972 ie., even before the IP was filed. This has been admitted by his son BM Poornachandran in paragraph 10 of his affidavit in CMP 11854 of 2023 (Page 392

¶363

32

¶364

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

¶365

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶366

of Vol 2). He has also admitted that Survey No 95/4 was sold in 1994. In paragraph 22 of his affidavit in CMP 11854 of 2023, Poornachandran has sought possession of the lands in Survey No 151/1 which does not find a place in the properties set out in Application 417 of 1990 filed by B.C Naidu.’

¶367

38.Having carefully considered the above Report, we believe that

¶368

nothing further need be stated in regard to this aspect of the matter. If there are any further issues that arise in this regard, the parties will work out their remedies in that regard independently and such issues, if any, need not detain either us, or this litigation, any further.

¶369

39.At the hearing on 24.04.2025, we had docketed that the learned counsel for the petitioner sought a few days’ time to peruse the final report of the Advocate Commissioner and compare the same with the report of the Amicus Curiae and on 28.04.2025, we had reserved Judgment. However, in the course of vacation,it appears that OA had filed one more report for correction of certain errors in the earlier report filed. A Report had been filed on 02.06.2025 with an Annexure and we were hence constrained to list the matter ‘for clarification’ in order to ensure that all other parties had had the benefit of the same and to extend an opportunity of hearing to them. At that hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner wished to file a rejoinder for which he was granted time.

¶370

33

¶371

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

¶372

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶373

40.On 07.07.2025, the following order had been passed:

¶374

‘ The Official Assignee has filed a report dated 02.06.2025 along with Annexure, wherein they state that an amount of Rs.3,93,382/- is retained towards future expenses. One of the items is a sum of Rs.2,09,117/- under the narration 'amount to be paid to the Income Tax Department (if any arises)'. However, learned counsel for the Official Assignee has confirmed orally that there is no demand as on date from the Income Tax Department. They are directed to file an affidavit confirming the same within a week from today.

¶375

2.In light of their oral confirmation, a revised statement shall be filed excluding a sum of Rs.2,09,117/-, which is now liable to be returned to the petitioner.

¶376

3.As required under serial No.7 of their report, the petitioner will also file an undertaking to the effect that all further expenses in respect of statutory dues, Government charges and other expenses in relation to the property will now be met by the petitioner. Such affidavit will be filed within a period of one week from today.

¶377

4.List on 14.07.2025 under the caption 'to receive documents as per docket order dated 07.07.2025.’

¶378

41.On 14.07.2025, the following order had been passed:

¶379

‘ Read this order in continuation of and in conjunction with order dated 07.07.2025.

¶380

2.Annexure – 1 filed along with report dated 26.06.2025 reads as follows:

¶381

*I.P.N*	*o.79 of 1972 B.C.Munirathinam Naidu*
*Sl.N*	*Particulars*	*Amount*
o.

¶382

34

¶383

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

¶384

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶385

I.P.No.79 of 1972 B.C.Munirathinam Naidu

¶386

1	Legalfee to bepaid to Senior Advocate T.Mohan	60,000
2	Legalfee to bepaid to Advocate C.Ramesh	50,000
3	2% interest on Fixed Deposit reserved for Contigency Fund	24,265
4	Administrative expenses including publication charges	20,000
5	5 occupants sale amount deposited with the Official Assignee section in the year 1994 (Total sqft. - 2,916/-)	30,000
6	Amount to be paid to income tax department (if any, arises)	2,09,117
		*3,93,382*

¶387

42.On 07.07.2025, the following order was passed:

¶388

The Official Assignee has filed a report dated 26.06.2025 along with Annexure, wherein they state that an amount of Rs.3,93,382/- is retained towards future expenses. One of the items is a sum of Rs.2,09,117/- under the narration 'amount to be paid to the Income Tax Department (if any arises)'. However, learned counsel for the Official Assignee has confirmed orally that there is no demand as on date from the Income Tax Department. They are directed to file an affidavit confirming the same within a week from today.

¶389

2.In light of their oral confirmation, a revised statement shall be filed excluding a sum of Rs.2,09,117/-, which is now liable to be returned to the petitioner.

¶390

35

¶391

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

¶392

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶393

3.As required under serial No.7 of their report, the petitioner will also file an undertaking to the effect that all further expenses in respect of statutory dues, Government charges and other expenses in relation to the property will now be met by the petitioner. Such affidavit will be filed within a period of one week from today.

¶394

4.List on 14.07.2025 under the caption 'to receive documents as per docket order dated 07.07.2025.

¶395

4.Today, a report dated 10.07.2025 is filed where the following annexures have been filed.

¶396

Annexure – I : Statement of Accounts

¶397

Annexure – II: Bill for professional services rendered by Mr.T.Mohan, Senior Advocate.

¶398

Annexure – III: Bill towards professional fees for drafting various reports by Mr.C.Ramesh, Advocate.

¶399

Annexure – IV: Details of five occupants to whom sale consideration yet to be returned. [as balance amount not paid within the stipulated time]

¶400

Annexure – V: Details of five occupants to whom sale deed to be executed by Official Assignee [Fully paid]

¶401

5.We find variation between the annexure filed on 26.06.2025 and the one filed on 10.07.2025. On a comparison, we find several items which do not figure in the earlier annexure, present in the present annexure. In fine, the amount to be retained by the Official Assignee is one and half lakhs less than what it was under the first annexure. We are thoroughly dissatisfied with the interest shown by the Official Assignee as well as the gross errors in the computations furnished.

¶402

36

¶403

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

¶404

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶405

6.On enquiry, Mr.Ramesh, learned counsel for Official Assignee informs us that there is an accounts department attached to the Official Assignee's office comprising three accountants. There is also an external auditor. In these circumstances, such errors should not have transpired, particularly, while dealing with the estates of the third parties.

¶406

7.A last opportunity is given to the Official Assignee to file a correct and complete report ensuring that there are no errors after reconciliation of the annexures filed. The report must be duly authenticated by the Chartered Accountant and filed within a period of two (2) weeks from today. We are also inclined to put the office of the Official Assignee to terms, to be quantified.

¶407

8.The petitioner is also required to file an affidavit, per paragraph 3 of order dated 07.07.2025, for which some time is sought. Final opportunity is granted to file the same, prior to the next date of hearing.

¶408

9.List on 28.07.2025 at 2.15 p.m.’

¶409

43.On 28.07.2025, an affidavit has been received from the

¶410

petitioner reading thus:

¶411

‘I, B M Purnachandran, son of late B C Munirathinam Naidu, Hindu, aged about 62 years, residing at Old No.218 & New No.2, “F: Block, 1 st Street, Anna Nagar East, Chennai 600 102, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state on oath as under:

¶412

1)I state that I am the petitioner/legal representative of the deceased appellant, late B C Munirathinam Naidu, who is my father and as such I am conversant with the facts of this case. Hence, I am swearing to this affidavit.

¶413

2)I state that humble statement of the petitioner/sole beneficiary and typed set of documents filed before this

¶414

37

¶415

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

¶416

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶417

Hon’ble Court dated 07/04/2025, memo dated 24/04/2025, rejoinder dated 28.04.2025, rejoinder dated 16/06/2025 and rejoinder dated 22/06/2025 may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.

¶418

3)I state that as per the affidavit of the Official Assignee dated 23/07/2025, which was served on my counsel on 25/07/2025, there is no demand from income tax deposit and hence, I am entitled to get refund of the amount Rs.2,09,117/earmarked to make payment to the income tax department and in the event of any demand is made in future out of the said amount, I shall undertake to make payments and other expenses, if any arises in the matter. Hence, this affidavit in compliance of the order of this Hon’ble High Court dated 07/07/2025.’

¶419

44.A final report has been filed on 25.07.2025 by OA that reads as

¶420

follows:

¶421

‘1. It is most respectfully submitted that pursuant to the directions of this Hon’ble Court dated 14.07.2025 made in C.M.P.Nos. 11854, 11885 and 11886 of 2023 and C.M.P.No. 1902 of 2010 in the above O.S Appeal, this Additional Report is being filed, after reconciling the annexures filed earlier with the help of an auditor. It is further submitted that as directed by this Hon’ble Court, a separate affidavit confirming that there is no demand from the Income Tax Department in the Estate of B.M.Munirathnam Naidu till date, has also been filed.

¶422

2. It is submitted that a Report dated 26.06.2025 along with an Annexure shows a sum of Rs.3,93,382/- has been reserved for “future expenses”. It is submitted that the sum of Rs.2,09,117/- shown in S.No.6 of the Annexure dated

¶423

38

¶424

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

¶425

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶426

26.06.2025 under the heading as amount to be paid to the income tax department, is now excluded.

¶427

3. A Tabular statement of the annexures filed along with the two Reports viz., 26.6.2025 and 10.07.2024 is set out as under:-

¶428

S.No.	Particulars	Amount to be retained by the office of Official Assignee as per Report dated*26.06.2025*	Amount to be retained by the office of Official Assignee as per Report dated *10.07.2025*
1	Legal fee to be paid to Senior Advocate Mr.T.Mohan	Rs.60,000/-	Rs.60,000/-
2	Legal fee to be paid to Advocate Mr.C.Ramesh	Rs.50,000/-	Rs.50,000/-
3	7% Government Commission	Not reserved	Rs.99,010/-
4	2% Interest on Fixed Deposit reserved for Contigency Fund	Rs.24,265/-	Rs.23,627/-
5	Administrative Expenses including publication charges	Rs.20,000/-	Rs.20,000/-
6	5 occupants sale amount deposited with the Official Assignee section in the year 1994 (Total Sq ft 2,916)	Rs.30,000	*Excluded* Since this forms part of the amount available in the estate
7	Amount to be paid to income tax department	Rs.2,09,117/-	*Excluded*
	Total	*Rs.3,93,382/-*	*Rs.2,52,637/-*

¶429

4. It is submitted that the amount now retained by the Official Assignee for future expenses is Rs.2,52,775/- and the details as to how the said amount has been arrived is explained by the External Auditor along with his certificate. As already submitted, the amount lying to the credit of the

¶430

39

¶431

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

¶432

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶433

Insolvent in the Estate is Rs.23,20,222/- and if the sum of Rs.2,57,775/- is deducted, the amount liable to be refund to the legal heir of the Insolvent is Rs.20,67,447/-. The Details of the same are enclosed herewith in the Annexure .

¶434

5. The above facts are placed before this Hon’ble Court and it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass appropriate orders and thus render justice.’

¶435

45.In light of the aforesaid detailed narration and discussion, we

¶436

are of the categoric view that at this distance of time and in light of the history that this matter has seen over the years, the OA attached to this Court has no further role to play as far as this matter is concerned. The prayer sought in CMP.No.11854 of 2023 has now been fully achieved. As may be seen from the trajectory that the matter has taken over the years, the matter has attained a quietus as on date and the role of the OA comes to an end. Let the amount quantified as refundable be paid over to the Petitioner within four (4) weeks from today.

¶437

46.CMP.No.11854 of 2023 is closed. All other miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶438

In light of the orders as above, nothing survives today in OSA.No.29 of 1992 and the same is also closed. No costs. With this, the curtains fall on a five decade old litigation.

¶439

40

¶440

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

¶441

OSA.NO.29 OF 1992

¶442

Index:Yes Speaking Order Neutral Citation:Yes

¶443

[A.S.M., J] [C.K., J] 02.09.2025

¶444

vs