OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE HIGH COURT MADRAS Vs. P VEERASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Application has been filed by the Official Assignee under Sections 7 and 68(1)(a) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, hereinafter called "the Act" praying to grant an order declaring that the cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the insolvent by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board dated 1.11.1995 and the subsequent reallotment made in favour of the 2nd respondent by order dated 15.11.1995 are not valid and are void against the Official Assignee and for further declaration that the schedule mentioned property covered under the original allotment by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board vested with the official Assignee. The Official Assignee further sought the permission of the Court to sell the said property in public auction.

(2.) THE 1st respondent herein was adjudicated as an insolvent in his own petition by this Court on 25.4.1996. At the commencement of the insolvency the 1st respondent was found residing in the schedule property which is premises bearing Door No. 387, Plot No. 412, N.S.K. Nagar, 21st Street, Arumbakkam, Chennai-106. This property without the superstructure was originally allotted to the insolvent by the 3rd respondent-Board in the year 1984 and according to the insolvent, he put up a building consisting of 3 floors (ground +2 floors) on the lands in the year 1988. Though the entire cost was paid to the Board, the sale deed is yet to be executed in favour of the insolvent. In his examination, the insolvent deposed that for a meager sum of Rs.22,088/-, one Krupakaran, the 2nd respondent herein coerced the insolvent to transfer the ownership in his name (2nd respondent). THEreafter the 2nd respondent approached the Board to cancel the original allotment made in the year 1984 in favour of the 1st respondent/insolvent and to re-allot the same in favour of 2nd respondent. THE further case of the insolvent is that he was residing in that house and he was threatened by 2nd respondent to deliver vacant possession. THErefore, the insolvent requested the Official Assignee to seal the premises. THE staff of the Official Assignee could not seal the premises as the 2nd respondent objected to by contending that he was the owner of the premises. It is reported that the doors which were in existence in the premises at the time of taking inventory on 25.4.1996 were found to be removed on 6.5.1996 when the staff of the Official Assignee went to the premises to seal the premises.

(3.) THE Slum Clearance Board has also filed a counter supporting the 2nd respondent. A learned Judge of this Court by order dated 29.9.1997 allowed Application No.42/1997 as prayed for against which 2nd respondent filed an Appeal in O.S.A. No.37/1998. THE Division Bench by order dated 17.12.1999 set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.9.1997 and remanded the matter for fresh disposal according to law after giving opportunity to the 2nd respondent herein to adduce further evidence to substantiate his claim that he was the owner of the property.