SHANMUGHAM Vs. PERUMAL NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is by defendants 2 to 4 and 10 in O.S. No. 648 of 1986, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry. Reference to the parties in this Second appeal will be as per the array in the suit, for the sake of convenience.

(2.) Plaintiff filed the above suit for the following reliefs:-

(3.) In the common written statement filed by defendants l to 4, they challenge the right of the plaintiff to seek redemption. According to them, the entire proceedings have been initiated under the Franch Code, in accordance with law. They have further stated that no amount need be deposited in Court pursuant to the auction. The requirement was only payment of expenses, and the same has been complied with. The auction was held rightly, and thereafter they have discharged the debt. It is said that the plaintiff, who was not able to pay in suits of several adjournments, filed E.A. 87 of 1970, seeking six months time and permission to sell the property privately to discharge the creditors. By judgment dated 28-4-1970, the Court was pleased to allow the said petition and to grant three months time to the debtor, the Plaintiff, and the sale was posted for full payment on 28-7-1970. The plaintiff did not either sell the property privately or pay the amount on the adjourned date. He wanted only adjournment after adjournment.On 15-10-1970, the Court ordered sale and the property was sold in auction. One Sambasiva Rao was the successful bidder, and he purchased the property through a counsel for Rs. 25,095/-. It is said that under French Law, if there is an offer for higher bid, the property has to be resold. One Kuppusamy Gramany, assisted by his counsel P. Chandrasekaran, made a declaration that he is willing to purchase the property for Rs. 29,280/-. On the basis of the said offer, a fresh publication was made. Plaintiff again sought adjournment for payment. On 17-10-1970, an advocate appeared for the Plaintiff and prayed for adjournment. Finally, on 4-1-1972, the property was sold in public auction and the same was taken delivery on 9-3-1972. It is further stated there was proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C., when there was dispute regarding possession. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, on 21-3-1972, forbid the plaintiff from interfering with the first defendants's lawful possession. It is said that the plaintiff moved a Revision against that Order, which also failed. It is further said that if the sale price is not paid, the creditor has to follow the procedure under French Code, and till it is resold, the auction purchaser is the owner. Under Article 1583 of the Code Civil, the sale is complete and the ownership is transferred to the purchaser even though the price was not paid. The auction purchaser may keep the sale price with him until demand is made subject to payment of interest at 7% per annum and the sale does not become null and void on account of non-deposit of payment. It is also said that the suit is barred by limitation, and that the defendants have prescribed adverse possession.