SUDHIR V JOSHI Vs. E KANNIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are against the Order dated 25.9.1996, passed by the Principal Judge of City Civil Court, Madras, which reads as follows :

(2.) Material facts which are necessary for the purpose of disposal of these revisions may be stated as follows : In all these revisions, the revision petitioner is the purchaser in Court-auction. For enforcing a mortgage which was executed by one Ekambara Sastri for himself and on behalf of his family, suit was filed by Indian Bank the mortgagee, as O'.S. No. 104 of 1972. A preliminary-decree was passed in the said Suit on 20.10.1973 and final decree was also passed on 7.12.1994. Since the amount was not paid, the mortgaged properties were brought to sale, and the appellant (revision petitioner) purchased the same- in Court auction on 30.10.1985, and the sale was also confirmed on 5.12.1985. After obtaining sale certificate, the appellant moved for taking delivery of the property as E.A. Nos. 128 and 186 of 1986. While the proceedings' were pending, it is seen that the first respondent herein moved an application for redelivery of the property. The case put forward by the first respondent was that he is the owner of the property having purchased the same from one Govindasami, who in turn had purchased the same in Court-auction in O.S. No. 5377 of 1970. The said suit was filed by Mercantile Credit Corporation against Ekambara Sastri for recovery of money. There was also another suit as O.S. No. 9300 of 1987, on the file of City Civil Court, Madras, for declaration and injunction or in the alternative to set aside the purchase by the appellant, filed by other persons. The said suit was one for declaration that the Court auctidn sale does not bind the share of everyone of the joint family. The said suit was decreed, and the decision is pending in appeal as A.S. No. 1137 of 1995.

(3.) By the impugned Order passed in O.S. No. 9300 of. 1987 which was filed by the plaintiff, court directed that the appellant is liable to redeliver the property under Order 21, Rule 99, CPC. It was said that a revision has to be filed. But the office returned the papers on the ground that only an appeal lies. The same was converted into a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and filed before the lower Appellate Court. On the C.M. Appeal, at the SR stage itself, lower Court has passed the above Order (extracted supra).The lower Court was of the view that the impugned Order directing redelivery is a decree tor ail purposes, and therefore, a Regular Appeal has tc be filed oh payment of ad valorem Court-fee. How far the said Order is correct, is the matte) that requires consideration in these Revisions.