M S SUNDARAM Vs. MADURAI SOLAIBADRA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed in E.A. No. 761 of 1983 in E.P. No. 199 of 1978 in O. S. No. 48 of 1973 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

(2.) Short facts are: The petitioners who are defendants 3 and 4 in the suit had filed E.A. 761 of 1983 under Section 47 and Order 21 Rules 66 and 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for setting aside the court auction sale held on 10-9-1979 on the following grounds:- The property belongs to joint family of the petitioners and their mother deceased, first defendant. The deceased first defendant was an illiterate lady and she was living in the property along with respondents 3 and 4. The petitioners used to come to Madurai to see their mother occasionally. The first petitioner was in Tea Board Service and was serving in the northern towns of India for more than two decades. The second petitioner was at Madras for more than two decades. The second respondent and her major sons started a transport business in 1971 and obtained the signature of the first defendant, without disclosing the true nature of the document, as if she had deposited title deed as security for the amount of Rs. 20,000/- alleged to have been borrowed under the pronote, signed by the second respondent herein. On that Promissory note, suit was laid and decreed ex parte on 16-10-1972. All these things were not known to the first defendant. Later on, the first defendant died in November 1976. Without the knowledge of the petitioners, final decree was passed and in execution proceedings, sale was held on 10-9-1979, in which the property was sold for paltry sum of Rs. 32,000/-. No notice was served upon these petitioners at any point of time. The property was brought to sale with many material irregularities and fraud in publishing and conducting the sale. The petitioners came to know of the above, only a week ago. Hence the petition.

(3.) Respondents 2 and 4 have filed objections. The allegations in it are briefly as follows:- The second defendant in the suit has set up the petitioners to file this petition. The allegations with regard to the suit, passing of preliminary and final decrees are all not true. The allegation that petitioners have succeeded to the estate, of the first defendent, as Legal Representatives, is not correct. The petitioners have no interest whatsoever in the property and their claim to the, property is illegal. Their claim that they have no knowledge of the court proceedings all these years is ridiculous. The petition is not maintainable.