S N M UBAYATULLAH Vs. SENTHILKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this civil revision petition, the fair and decreetal orders, dated 17.10.2006, passed in I.A.No.253 of 2005 in I.A.No.37 of 2005 in O.S.No.28 of 1909, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, are being assailed.

(2.) It is found that in respect of the properties belonging to Sri Venkatarajulu Trust, a scheme decree had been passed in O.S.No.28 of 1909, on the file of the Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai at Kumbakonnam. It is further found that shorn of unnecessary details, pursuant to the orders passed by the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3577 of 1988 setting aside the sale effected by the Trust and its Trustees in respect of certain items of the Trust properties, the petitioner being the successful bidder in the public auction held by the Court purchased certain items of the Trust properties, for a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- and accordingly, it is found that the sale in favour of the petitioner had been confirmed. Meanwhile, inasmuch as a suit in O.S.No.109 of 1990, had been filed by R.Sankaranarayana Reddiar and S.Alwar against the Trust and its Trustees for the relief of declaration that the right, title and interest of the Trust and its Trustees over the subject properties has become extinguished on account of taking over of the estate under the Tamil Nadu Act, 26 of 1948 and for consequential injunction restraining the Trust and Trustees from negotiating or otherwise including the sale of the suit property through Court and even though the said suit had come to be dismissed on 25.02.1992, it is found that as against the Judgement and Decree passed in the said suit, A.S.No.412 of 1992 had been preferred on the file of this Court and it is further found that in C.M.P.No.8229 of 1992, this Court had granted an order of interim injunction. It is, thus, found that on account of the above said order of interim injunction granted by this Court, though the sale had been confirmed in favour of the petitioner as regards the purchase of certain items of the Trust properties by him as the highest bidder in the Court auction, neither the sale certificate could be issued nor the sale deed could be executed in his favour. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has got himself impleaded in the proceedings of A.S.No.412 of 1992. Be that as it may, it is found that the amount deposited by the petitioner in the Court is earning interest and it is further found that a substantial amount is now lying in the Court deposit. While so, the Trustees of the Trust above mentioned seem to have filed an application in I.A.No.37 of 2005 seeking permission to construct a shopping complex in the property comprised in T.S.Nos.2935 and 2936 and also seeking permission to withdraw the amount lying in the Court deposit i.e., by way of the sale proceeds deposited by the petitioner towards the purchase of certain items of the Trust properties of the Trust in the Court auction. It is found that the above said application was entertained by the Court below and thereby, it is further found that the petitioners therein, namely, the Trustees of the Trust above mentioned, were granted permission to withdraw the amount lying in the Court deposit on certain conditions. Now, it is the case of the petitioner that on coming to know of the same, inasmuch as, according to him, the amount lying in the Court deposit being the amount tendered by him for the purchase of certain items of the Trust properties in the public auction and inasmuch as neither the sale certificate nor the sale deed had been executed in his favour by the Trust and its Trustees as enjoined upon them and inasmuch as the same could also not be effected on account of the order of injunction passed in A.S.No.412 of 1992, according to him, the amount lying in the Court deposit do not belong to the Trust till the sale deed is executed in his favour and further according to him, the interest accrued on the amount lying in the Court deposit only belongs to him and he is entitled to withdraw the amount, for which he is contemplating to file necessary application and meanwhile, if the Trustees are permitted to withdraw the amount, inclusive of the interest, the same would cause irreparable loss and hardship to him and therefore, he moved I.A.No.252 of 2005 restraining the Trust and its Trustees to withdraw the amount lying in the Court deposit and also I.A.No.253 of 2005 to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.37 of 2005 and to declare that the Trust and its Trustees are not entitled to withdraw the amount lying in the Court deposit.

(3.) It is found that the Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties and also the materials placed, seeing that on account of the injunction order prevailing as ordered in A.S.No.412 of 1992, the sale deed could not be executed in favour of the petitioner and also finding that inasmuch as the sale deed had not been executed pursuant to his purchase of certain items of the Trust properties in the Court auction though the said sale had also been confirmed in his favour, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, passed an order in I.A.No.252 of 2005 directing the petitioner to approach the High Court and get appropriate orders so as to effect the execution of the sale deed in his favour and also further ordered that after the lapse of one month from the date of execution of the sale in his favour, the Trust and its Trustees are entitled to withdraw the amount lying in the Court deposit and accordingly, the Court had also in I.A.No.253 of 2005, considering the above said directions passed in I.A.No.252 of 2005, held that the order, dated 09.09.2005, passed in I.A.No.37 of 2005, is accordingly amended in deference to the order passed in I.A.No.252 of 2005 and disposed of the said applications. Impugning the order passed in I.A.No.253 of 2005 alone, it is found that the petitioner has filed this civil revision petition.