JANAKI S MENON Vs. V R S KRISHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

(3.) These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the High Court of Kerala made on November 1, 1995 in CRP Nos. 1745 and 1980 and 1995. The case has a chequered history, details of which need no repetition. Suffice it to state that the late V. Madhava Raja owed certain dues towards income-tax, wealth tax and agriculture income-tax. On his demise, when a partition suit, viz. OS No.1/64 was filed for division of the properties by metes and bounds among the sharers, an attempt was made by the State to have the estate attached for recovery of the tax dues. Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the Court passed an order avoiding attachment and directed the Joint Commissioner to recover the dues from the estate and pay over the same to the Income-tax and other other Government dues. On an application, final decree was passed on July 15, 1967 in which the appellants had purchased 4/13th share. In the final decree proceedings for recovery of dues of the State certain properties came to be identified and ultimately Devi Vilas Palace was also agreed to be sold by order of the Court dated January 28, 1983 for recovery of the arrears. Several attempts were made to sell out the properties to the co-sharers for realisation of the tax dues of the State remained unsuccessful. Consequently, by order of the Court dated April 8, 1992, direction was given to sell the property by public auction. After due publicity, the property in dispute was sold on July 15, 1992 for a sum of Rs.31, 15,000/-. Under the terms of the sale, 1/4th of the bid amount was required to be deposited forthwith and the balance amount was to be deposited within 15 days thereafter. In default, 1/4th amount was to be forfeited. In the meanwhile, pending the litigation, the matter reached twice to the Court. SLP (C) No. 8040/92 came to be filed in this Court wherein this Court passed an interim order directing stay of the confirmation of the sale. Resultantly, the auction-purchaser-respondents filed an application in the Court on June 26, 1992 seeking permission to withdraw from the auction. Pending that application, they filed another application on June 29, 1992 for extension of time to deposit 3/4th amount. Ultimately, by order dated September 19, 1992, this Court had dismissed the special leave petition with liberty to the executing Court to confirm the sale already made etc. In the meanwhile, the Court passed vague orders on auction-purchasers applications for permission to withdraw from auction and for extension of time. Auction purchaser filed a revision in the High Court. The learned single Judge further directed the trial Court to consider the matter in the light of the direction issued by this Court in the special leave petition.