Madras High Court
S.Somasundaram vs S.Natarajan (Died) on 31 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 22.10.2025 Order pronounced on : 31.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP.No.583 of 2017
S.Somasundaram ... Petitioner
Vs.
S.Natarajan (Died)
1.P.R.Manonmani
2.Thara
3.Sudha
4.K.Subbaiya Gowder
Chikkanna Gowder (Died)
5.Renuga Raj ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to set aside the order and decretal order dated 24.10.2013 made in
E.A.No.44 of 2000 in E.P.No.21 of 1993 in O.S.No.124 of 1983 on the file
of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nandhakumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Rajmahesh for R5
RR1 & 4 Died (steps due)
No appearance for RR2 and 3
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:37:00 pm )
ORDER
The petitioner is a third party, who filed an application, seeking to set
aside the sale deed dated 27.10.1999 in E.P.No.21 of 1993. The said
application came to be dismissed by the executing Court and challenging
the same, the present revision has been filed.
2.I have heard Mr.R.Nandhakumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.S.Rajmahesh, learned counsel appearing for the 5th
respondent.
3.Mr.R.Nandhakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the respondents 2, 3 and 4 are the legal representatives of the 1st
respondent, the deceased decree holder and that the 5th respondent is the
judgment debtor and the respondents 6 and 7 are purchasers in the auction
held by the Court. He would further submit that when the sale was posted to
27.10.1999, the revision petitioner filed an application under Order XXI
Rule 69 of CPC, praying for adjournment of the sale, expressing readiness
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:37:00 pm )
to make payment to the decree holder, without prejudice to his rights.
However, the said application was dismissed and the sale was held on the
very same day and the EP was adjourned, for further proceedings to
conclude the sale, to 03.01.2000. He would further state that the properties
which are subject matter of the suit are ancestral properties and the
petitioner, his brothers and the 5th respondent have right, title and interest
over the same and even the execution petition was filed after a period of
eight years, despite an ex-parte decree being granted in favour of the 1st
respondent.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that the
petitioner also filed a claim petition under Section 47 of CPC, however, the
said application was returned on 25.10.1999 and within two days, the
property was brought for sale on 27.10.1999. The petitioner's application
under Order XXI Rule 69 of CPC was filed on the very same day and the
same was also returned and the auction sale in favour of the 7 th respondent
was confirmed. It is thereafter that the petitioner filed yet another
application under Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC to set aside the sale.
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:37:00 pm )
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the filing of the said
application was not even brought to the notice of the Court and an
endorsement was made on 03.01.2000, as if there was no application filed to
set aside the sale deed. He would therefore state that the respondents 2 to 4
have, in collusion with the auction purchaser and the Court officers, denied
the valuable rights of the revision petitioner to safeguard his interest in the
property. He would therefore pray for the revision being allowed.
5.Per contra, Mr.S.Rajmahesh, learned counsel appearing for the
contesting respondents would submit that the revision petitioner has filed
the application only at the instigation of his father, the 5th respondent, the
judgment debtor in the EP. He would further state that as a third party, the
petition under Section 47 of CPC itself was not maintainable and even in the
application filed to set aside the sale deed, the petitioner has not even stated
his interest in the suit property to enable him to seek cancellation of the sale
deed. He would also invite my attention to the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents 2 to 4 in E.A.No.44 of 2000, wherein they have denied even
filing of the an application under Order XXI Rule 69 of CPC, seeking
4/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:37:00 pm )
adjournment of the sale and the allegations that the Court was mislead and
there was collusion between the respondents, the auction purchasers and the
Court staff were all vexatious and unsubstantiated. He would further stated
that the very application filed under Section 151 of CPC was not
maintainable and the application was a sheer abuse of process of law and
rightly, the executing Court has dismissed the same, warranting no
interference in this revision.
6.Additionally, it is also brought to my notice by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that insofar as the siblings of the revision petitioner, the
matter has been settled as between the decree holder and the petitioner's
siblings and a full satisfaction memo has also been filed and the EP itself
has been terminated. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would
therefore state that the petitioner is also entitled to relief, since the decree
holder has recorded full satisfaction and the EP has been terminated.
7.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel on either side.
5/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:37:00 pm )
8.The petitioner suffered a decree on 03.01.2000 and the auction
purchasers were directed to pay 1/4th of the purchase price on or before
01.11.1999 and the same has been complied with and the remaining sale
consideration has been paid within a period of 14 days and on 03.01.2000,
the sale has been confirmed in favour of the auction purchasers. On
10.01.2000, the present EA.No.44 of 2000 has been filed, seeking to set
aside the auction sale.
9.It is contended by the petitioner that the siblings of the petitioner
have reached a settlement with the decree holder in the suit and the EP has
also been terminated, recording full satisfaction of the decree and therefore,
the sale of the property in favour of the auction purchaser has to necessarily
go. The rights that have accrued to the auction purchaser even as early as on
03.01.2000, cannot be lightly disturbed by any settlement behind his back,
that too, between some of the judgment debtors and the decree holder,
whose interest has already been sufficiently satisfied by bringing the
property of the judgment debtors for sale in public auction and the auction
6/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:37:00 pm )
purchaser has also deposited the entire sale consideration, even as early as
in January 2000. Therefore, any settlement behind the back of the auction
purchaser, that too, in the year 2016 is of no avail to the revision petitioner.
10.Be that as it may, the revision petitioner has not even stated as to
how he is interested in the subject matter of the property. The entire
affidavit merely proceeds on the basis that the petitioner, on coming to
know of the auction to be held by the Court, sought for postponement of the
same and since the application under Order XXI of Rule 69 of CPC was
returned and the sale was confirmed on 27.10.1999 and therefore, the
petitioner has filed an application under Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC to set
aside the sale on 24.12.1999 and even the filing of the said application was
not brought to the notice of the Court on 03.01.2000.
11.The executing Court has found that though the petitioner attacks
the sale deed on the ground of fraud, he is a third party to the proceedings
and he does not even state as to how the petitioner is interested in the
property or is affected by the sale, to even enable the petitioner to allege
7/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:37:00 pm )
material irregularity in bringing the property to sale, as required under Order
XXI Rule 90 of CPC, when the auction sale is challenged. The Court has
also found that though the petitioner claims that he was ready to make
payment, he has neither made any payment nor made any representation
before the Court and referring to the exhibits relied on by the learned
counsel for the petitioner in Ex.P1 to Ex.P3, the trial Court has found that
all these applications have been returned and it is not proper for the
petitioner to allege collusion between the decree holder and the Court Clerk,
which in any event was held to be unsubstantiated and not proved by any
material evidence adduced on the side of the petitioner.
12.The executing Court has also found that not only has the petitioner
not established his interest in the property, but also failed to prove any
irregularity or fraud in bringing the property for sale. In effect, even though
the petitioner had filed the application under Section 151 of CPC, the trial
Court has examined the said application in the light of the provisions of
Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC and has found that the petitioner has not made
out any case, warranting setting aside of the sale conducted by the Court. I
8/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:37:00 pm )
do not find any infirmity or perversity in the findings arrived at by the trial
Court, warranting interference in this revision.
13.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
31.10.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
ata
To
The II Additional Sub-Judge, Coimbatore.
9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:37:00 pm )
P.B. BALAJI,J.
ata
Pre-delivery order made in
31.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:37:00 pm )
