P RAJENDRAN Vs. S AMMANIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment dated 21.2.2007, made in CMA.No.35 of 2006 by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Erode setting aside the fair and decretal order of injunction dated 9.8.2006 made in I.A.No.444 of 2006 in O.S.No:135 of 2006 by the District Munsif-cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai. ) Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment dated 21.2.2007, made in CMA.No.35 of 2006 by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Erode, setting aside the fair and decretal order of injunction dated 9.8.2006 made in I.A.No.444 of 2006 in O.S.No:135 of 2006 by the District Munsif-cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows:- THE suit has been filed by the revision petitioner against the respondents herein for permanent injunction restraining them from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. According to the petitioner the suit properties are non residential properties and belonged to the first respondent/first defendant and S.Senniappan who is the third defendant in the suit. THE second respondent is the husband of the first respondent. THE third defendant S.Senniappan and one Ravi were partners in a firm M/s. Maker Exports, which firm obtained loans from Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Tiruppur in the year 1994 and the suit properties were shown as securities for the repayment of the loan. THE first respondent was the co-applicant for the loans advanced to the said firm and the first respondent and the third defendant executed an equitable mortgage of their properties in favour of the Bank. THE Bank filed O.A.No:277 of 2000 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, renumbered as O.A.No:834 of 2001 before the DRT-II, Chennai against the said firm for recovery of its dues to the tune of Rs.1,15,81,537/= and the same was transferred to the DRT, Coimbatore in T.A.No:729 of 2002. Though all the defendants entered appearance, but they non prosecuted and therefore they were set ex parte and consequently the application was allowed on 26.10.2004 and the Bank obtained the decree for Rs.3,27,92,564/=. THE properties were brought for sale in RP.No.22/2005 by the DRT and one K.Duraisamy who was the tenant of the respondents and was doing business in the suit properties since 200 has purchased the same for a sum of Rs.33,07,000/= in the auction sale held on 8.12.2005 and sale certificate was issued by the Recovery Officer of the DRT and the sale was confirmed on 8.2.2006 after two months from the date of sale and thus the sale was made absolute and possession certificate was also given by the DRT on 20.2.2006. the sale certificate was duly registered as Document L.No.1/2006 in the Sub Registrar office at Uthukuli.

(3.) THE first and second respondents filed a counter stating that the third defendant without the knowledge of them created an equitable mortgage by depositing the title deeds with the said Dhanalakshmi Bank and the properties were sold in public auction and they came to know about all these things just prior to three months only and they have lodged a police complaint in Cr.No.73/2006 against the third defendant, auction purchaser, the petitioner and the Bank. THEy also field Appeal No.4 of 206 before the DRT, Coimbatore against the recovery proceedings and the sale order given by the recovery officer was stayed. THE auction purchaser filed appeal against that order before the DRAT, Chennai in Appeal NO.181 of 206 and it was dismissed and hence the auction sale proceedings of the recovery officer of the DRT are not enforceable. THEy have also taken steps to set aside the exparte decree passed in O.S.No:238 of 2005 obtained by the tenant cum auction sale purchaser.