DAYANAND P SESHAN Vs. M DHANASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to an order of the learned Single Judge made in O.A.No.644 of 2006 in C.S.No.601/2006 whereby the said application and another application in O.A.No.643 of 2006 were allowed granting the interim reliefs by a common order.

(2.) THE first respondent/plaintiff filed the said civil suit for a declaration that the sale deed dated 21.7.2004, executed by the second respondent/first defendant in favour of the appellant/second defendant of the Schedule property was null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for consequential permanent injunction not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. At the time of the initiation of the suit, the plaintiff filed O.A.No.643/2006 seeking interim injunction not to disturb or interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment and also O.A.No.644/2006 to restrain the respondents therein from alienating, encumbering, leasing or dealing with the schedule property in any manner pending disposal of the suit. On appearance, the respondents therein filed their counter. Both the applications were taken up for enquiry and the learned Single Judge by a common order allowed the same. Aggrieved over the order made in O.A.No.644/2006, the second defendant has brought forth this appeal.

(3.) THE said application was countered by the appellant/second defendant inter alia stating that the suit property was mortgaged by the plaintiff with the first defendant even in the year 1994 when the plaintiff availed Rs.20 lakhs that admittedly, he has defaulted in payment of principal and interest that the plaintiff has tried to interpret the terms and conditions of the mortgage deed to suit his convenience that the very reading of the mortgage deed would clearly indicate that he has no case that he has committed default in payment of interest for several years that the first defendant faced financial problems pursuant to the default committed by various debtors including the plaintiff that the plaintiff remained a willful defaulter in respect of lot of moneys lent to him by the Nidhi which were public funds and cared little to repay the dues that the plaintiff has come with the baseless statements that the public auction sale was conducted on 27.3.2003 at the suit property that the second defendant was the successful bidder for a sum of Rs.35 lakhs that the sale conditions were strictly complied with that in view of the pendency of certain winding up proceedings before this Court against the first defendant, the second defendant filed C.A.No.1970 of 2003 in C.P.No.179 of 2003 for leave of the Company Court that the said application was allowed by this Court on 13.7.2004 that after getting leave from the Company Court, the sale deed was executed on 21.7.2004 in favour of the second respondent upon payment of the entire bid amount that even before the filing of the suit in C.S.No.919 of 2004, there had been despatch of several notices to the plaintiff, who has deliberately evaded them with oblique motive that the plaintiff was always available in the suit property that he was fully aware about all the proceedings and thus, the claim of the plaintiff that he came to know about the sale only after service of the notice in C.S.No.919 of 2004 was completely false that the terms and conditions in both the mortgage deed and also the notice as contemplated under Sec.69 of the Transfer of Property Act have been strictly complied with that there was proper service of notice that under such circumstances, the chronic defaulter namely the plaintiff, for a period of 10 years, has come forward with false allegations, and hence the plaintiff had no merits at all in the suit or in the application that the sale in favour of the second defendant was effected by following the due procedures and also after obtaining the permission from the Company Court that left with no ground or case, the plaintiff has filed the vexatious suit, and hence the application was to be dismissed.