G KANNAN Vs. D F SAMUEAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Letters Patent Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single judge, dated 15.12.1989 in C.M.A. No. 6888 of 1989, wherein the learned single judge, while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant herein has confirmed the order of dismissal passed by the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai on 6.7.1989 in O.S.E.A. No. 50 of 1987 in O.S.E.P. No. 32 of 1983 in O.S. No. 486 of 1981, filed by the appellant.

(2.) THE Execution Petition was filed for attachment and sale of property of the judgment debtor for the realisation of the money decree passed in the suit. THE properties were ordered to be attached on 15.2.1983., and accordingly they were attached. Proclamation and sale were also ordered. In the meantime pending all further proceedings, the judgment debtor was reported to be dead on 12.10.1984 and direction was given to take steps. THE decree holder also filed applications for bringing on record the legal representatives of the judgment debtor as also for reduction of the upset price. All the said applications appear to have been returned for complying with certain defects. Since within the time granted, compliance was not made, the application filed for bringing on record, the legal representatives of the judgment debtor was dismissed, as a consequence of which E.P. No. 32 of 1983 was also dismissed for default, and attachment ordered earlier was raised. THE fact remains that subsequently on an application filed viz., E.A. No. 1177 of 1985 by the decree holder, the Execution Petition No. 32 of 1983 was restored to file on 4.2.1986 and E.A. No. 462 of 1985 was allowed by bringing the legal representatives of the judgment debtor on record and in E.A. No. 463 of 1985, Mr. R. Vivekanandan has been appointed as the guardian for the minors proposed respondents and time was granted for filing counter affidavit by the parties impleaded. THEreupon on 1.12.1986, the Court below also appears to have reduced the upset price to Rs. 4 lakhs by its order made in E.A. No. 519 of 1984. THEreupon, on 8.12.1986, the Court was said to have ordered proclamation and sale of the properties on 19.1.87. At that stage, two of the respondents, who were impleaded as party respondents to the Execution Petition have filed Civil Revision Petition No. 102 of 1987 before this Court against the order of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai made in E.P. No. 32 of 1983 in O.S. No. 486 of 1981, whereunder, there has been a reduction of the upset price. THE said Revision Petition came to be disposed of by a learned single judge of this Court on 19.9.1988. In the meantime, after the dismissal of the Execution petition on 7.10.1985, as noticed earlier, for default the claim petition/appellant, who is none other than the brother's son of the judgment debtor appears to have purchased the said property under three different sale deeds for Rs. 46000/-; Rs. 47000/- and Rs. 48000/- marked in the proceedings in the Claim Petition as Exs. A1 to A3 respectively.

(3.) THE further point put against the appellant was the order passed by the learned single judge of this Court on 19.9.1988 in C.R.P. No. 102 of 1987, which was held to be binding on the appellant too, as the successor in interest of the parties, who filed said revision.