(1.) The judgment and decree dtd. 24/8/2011 of the Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet, in and by which the judgment and decree dtd. 18/9/2010 of the District Munsif, Udumalpet, was reversed and the matter was remanded to the file of the trial court is put in issue by filing the present appeal.
(2.) The case, as transpires from the materials available on record are that the mortgage of the subject property by the 2nd respondent was made in the year 1990 in favour of the 3rd respondent by of agreement of sale dtd. 14/12/1988. In the year 1996, the 3rd respondent filed O.S. No.31/1996 for recovery and the saud suit was transferred and renumbered as T.A. No.921/1997 and T.A. No.514/2002 upon constitution of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Tribunal, upon adjudication, decreed the case in favour of the 3rd respondent herein in the year 1999 and recovery certificate was issued for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,36,45,461.00 along with interest. On the basis of the recovery certificate, proceedings were initiated by the Recovery Officer to recover the amount in R.P. No.30 of 2002 and on 17/10/2006, public auction was conducted in which the appellant succeeded in purchasing the property as the successful auction purchaser leading to the issuance of sale certificate, which was also registered.
(3.) It further transpires from the materials that in the year 2007, the 1st respondent filed I.A. No.630/2007 in T.A. No.514/2002 under Schedule II Rule 11 (1) of the Procedure for Recovery of Tax claiming inter alia that an agreement of sale was entered into between the 2nd respondent and 1st respondent on 14/12/1998 and that as a consequence thereof, suit in O.S. No.408/1994 was filed by the 1st respondent against the 2nd respondent claiming the relief of specific performance and the suit was decreed ex parte on 12/1/1995 pursuant to which the 2nd respondent executed a sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent and, therefore, the 1st respondent, as the owner of the subject property claimed absolute ownership and claimed that the sale certificate issued in favour of the appellant is invalid and void.