LAWS(MAD)-2007-6-88

MARIMUTHAMMAL Vs. VAITHI

Decided On June 20, 2007
MARIMUTHAMMAL Appellant
V/S
VAITHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order of dismissal of an application in REA No. 435 of 1984 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, seeking to set aside the sale made in E. P. No. 322 of 1978 pursuant to a decree passed in O. S. No. 157/70, is the subject matter of challenge in this revision.

(2.) THE Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.

(3.) COUNTERING the above contentions, the learned Counsel for the first respondent/auction purchaser would submit that in the instant case, an order was passed in the year 1978 fixing the mesne profits; that in order to recover the same, E. P. was filed in 1978; that the property was brought for sale; that it was sold in September 1982; that it has also been confirmed in November 1982; that a sale certificate has also been issued; that only the delivery is awaited; that in the appeal filed by the judgment debtor, there was no stay; that the appeal was allowed reducing the mesne profits amount, only in November 1983; that the letter patent appeal came to an end only in 1988; and that all these happenings were subsequent to the confirmation of sale. The learned Counsel would further add that there is no evidence to show that there was any collusion between the decree holder and the auction purchaser, the first respondent herein; that there was no suppression in the instant case as alleged by the petitioner herein; and that since the third party-purchaser purchased the property in September 1982, and it was subsequently confirmed on 30. 11. 1982, and all these things have taken place subsequently, no question of suppression would arise. Added further the learned counsel that it is true that the property is having an extent of 2 acres and odd in one block, and 32 cents in the other block; that the property was sold in 1982; and that the value of the property in 1982 should be taken into consideration. The learned Counsel would further add that there is no question of amendment of the decree that would arise at this stage since the sale was already confirmed in favour of the third party; that as far as the auction purchaser is concerned, he is to tender the rest of the amount; that as far as the decree holder is concerned, if there is any amount available, he is to receive it and execute the decree; that the contentions what were all raised before the lower Court, were put forth in this revision; that there is not even one irregularity that is noticed for setting aside the sale; that the lower court has given an elaborate order and rejected the contentions, and hence, it has got to be sustained.