Madras High Court
Ramani Bai vs P.R. Satheeswaran on 18 October, 2022
CRP.No. 1506 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.R.P.No. 1506 of 2019
and
CMP.No.9840 of 2019
Ramani Bai .. Petitioner
Versus
1. P.R. Satheeswaran
2. Devendran ...Respondents
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated 29.03.2019 in
E.A.Sr.No.22620 of 2019 in E.P.No.358 of 2018 in RCOP.No.343 of 2016
on the file of XV Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.T. Sai Krishnan
For R1 : Mr.V.R. Thangavel
For R2 : Not served with notice. Door Locked
----
1/1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 1506 of 2019
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
to set aside the fair and decretal order in E.A.Sr.No.22620 of 2019, dated
29.03.2019 in E.P.No.358 of 2018 in RCOP.No.343 of 2016 on the file of
XV Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2. The revision petitioner is a third party in EA.Sr.No.22620 of 2019
and the respondents herein are the respondents in Execution Application.
3. The petitioner/1st plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.2654 of 2015
before the XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, for redemption of
mortgaged immovable properties, execution of cancellation of the mortgage
deed and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the
petitioner has filed E.A.Sr.No.22620 of 2019 in E.P.No.358 of 2018 in
RCOP.No.343 of 2016 under Order 21, Rule 97 of CPC., r/w Sec.151
CPC., before the XV Court of Small Causes, Chennai, to record the
obstruction and terminate E.P.No.358 of 2018. She is the absolute owner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 1506 of 2019
of the properties and mortgaged the same to one Ramesh, the defendant in
the suit and he lawfully brought the said properties for auction without
following due process of law. He had sold the property to the 1st
respondent/auction purchaser herein. Based upon the same, the 1st
respondent filed E.P.No.358 of 2018 against the second respondent. In
fact, the first respondent is a tenant under the petitioner herein and he has
filed E.P.No.358 of 2018 directing the Judgment-Debtor to vacate and
deliver vacant possession of the suit properties and the same was rejected
by Executing Court. The second respondent already filed a Memo before
the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.810 of 2017, stating that
compromise was effected between the second respondent and the petitioner
and the vacant possession of the properties had been handed over to the
petitioner. Hence, the said contention was already raised before the
Appellate Authority, who decided the same and rejected the memo filed by
the second respondent herein. Challenging the said finding of the trial
Court, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
submitted that the petitioner has mortgaged the properties to one Ramesh,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 1506 of 2019
the defendant in the suit, and he has illegally brought the petition premises
for auction without following the due procedures and sold the same to the
first respondent/Auction Purchaser. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the
suit in O.S.No.2654 of 2015 before the City Civil Court, Chennai, for
redemption of mortgage of the properties, permanent injunction and other
consequential relief against the mortgagee. During the said proceedings,
the defendant sold the properties to the first respondent/auction purchaser
and the same was yet to be purchased by the first respondent/decree
holder. Pending the suit, the petitioner has filed an I.A.No. 15471 of 2015
to implead the proposed defendant, namely, P.R.Satheeswaran as the
second defendant in the suit. The petitioner, along with proposed second
defendant, have filed IA.No.14363 of 2018 before the trial Court and the
said application is still pending. Therefore, the alleged auction
purchaser/decree holder is not entitled to proceed with EP.No.358 of 2018
in RCOP.No.343 of 2016. Accordingly, she filed obstruction petition
before executing Court to set aside the findings of the trial Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/auction
purchaser submitted that, by invoking Section 69 of the Transfer of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 1506 of 2019
Property Act, he purchased the properties for a total sale consideration of
Rs.22,70,000/-, dated 15.07.2015, as per the sale deed, and he is the
absolute owner of the properties in the manner known to law.
6. Heard both sides and perused the records.
7. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner has filed
a suit in O.S.No.2654 of 2015 before the XVI Assistant City Civil Court,
Chennai, for redemption of mortgage of the properties, permanent
injunction and other consequential relief against one Ramesh, the
defendant in the suit. It is categorically admitted by the first respondent
that the defendant had sold the properties by way of registered sale deed,
dated 15.07.2015 in Doc.No.2233 of 2015 for a total consideration of
Rs.22,70,000/- after filing of the suit. The contention of the first
respondent's counsel is that after filing of the suit, the first respondent has
not deposited any amount before the Trial Court to redeem the mortgage,
but the contention of the revision petitioner is that, now she is ready and
willing to deposit the amount before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 1506 of 2019
8. It is also seen that the petitioner, namely, Ramani Bai, is the
original owner of the properties and she had mortgaged her property to one
Ramesh (tenant) and subsequently, he has illegally brought the petition
premises for auction without following the due procedures contemplated
under law, and the said Ramesh sold the properties in favour of the first
respondent. The first respondent has filed E.P.No.358 of 2018 in
RCOP.No.343 of 2016 before the XV Small Causes Court, Chennai, to
direct the Judgment-Debtor to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the
suit properties. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed EA.SR.No.22620 of
2019 before the XV Court of Small Causes under Order 21 Rule 97 of
CPC., to obstruction and terminate EP proceedings. Pursuant to the same,
the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.2654 of 2015 before the City Civil
Court, Chennai, for redemption of mortgage of the properties and to
declare the sale deed executed in favour of the Decree Holder as null and
void and the same is pending. During the pendency of the appeal in
RCA.No.810 of 2017, the petitioner had repaid the entire lease amount to
the Judgment-Debtor and he has vacated and handed over the vacant
possession to the petitioner herein. Therefore, this Court is of the view that
suit properties were sold to the auction purchaser/first respondent by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 1506 of 2019
Judgment-Debtor after filing of the original suit.
9. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.03.2019 passed in
E.A.Sr.No.22620 of 2019 in E.P.No.358 of 2018 in RCOP.No.343 of 2016
on the file of XV Small Causes Court, Chennai, is set aside.
10. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstance of
the case, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.2654 of
2015 pending before the XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after
giving an opportunity of hearing for both sides. That apart, the petitioner
is hereby directed to deposit a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- [Rupees Seven Lakhs
Only) before the trial Court to the credit of O.S.No.2654 of 2015 within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
However, E.P.No.358 of 2018 in RCOP.No.343 of 2016 on the file of XV
Court of Small Causes, Chennai, not to be prosecuted till the disposal of
suit in O.S.No.2654 of 2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 1506 of 2019
11. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
18.10.2022
msm
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
To
1. XV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 1506 of 2019
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
msm
C.R.P.No. 1506 of 2019
18.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
