U ANJANEYULU Vs. DEPUTY REGISTER OF COOP SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 4th respondent owned a plot of land in Yemmiganur Town of Kurnool District. She obtained a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the Yemmiganur House Building Society Limited, 2nd respondent herein, which is affiliated to A.F. House Federation, Kadapa, 1st respondent herein in the year 1999. The plot referred to above was mortgaged as security through deposit of title deeds. Since the 4th respondent failed to clear the debt, the 2nd respondent initiated proceedings under Section 71 of the Cooperative Societies Act (for short 'the Act') before the concerned authority. A Recovery Certificate was issued for the amount of principal due, with interest thereon. Since that was not complied with, execution proceedings were initiated before the Cooperative Sub-Registrar/Recovery Officer, 3rd respondent herein by filing E.P.No. 112/99-2000. The mortgaged property was put to sale. Out of it, an extent of 73.33 square yards together with three mulgies thereon was sold in the auction. The petitioner herein emerged as successful bidder for a sum of Rs. 2,90,000/-. The sale was confirmed on 05.02.2004 and the sale certificate was also issued.

(2.) The 4th respondent filed C.T.A.No. 242 of 2004 before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad challenging the order confirming the sale passed by the 3rd respondent. One of the grounds urged was that though the mortgaged property viz., H.No. 6/7, Car Street, Yemmiganur, admeasuring 236 square yards was shown as the property to be sold, a part of it covered by mulgies in an extent of 73.33 square yards was put to sale by tampering with the entries in the prescribed form. It was also mentioned that the 3rd respondent committed irregularity. The petitioner, who figured as 4th respondent in the appeal, contested the matter. Through its order, dated 31.03.2006, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Sri M.F. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the petitioner submits though the 4th respondent mortgaged a plot of 236 square yards, over the period, three mulgies were constructed with the amount borrowed from the 2nd respondent and on finding that the sale of a part of the property would be sufficient to liquidate the debt, that part of the property was brought to sale. He contends that the 4th respondent did not raise any objection when the sale was being effected and that it is always competent for the sale officer to sell a part of the attached property, if it is sufficient to liquidate the debt.