Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P.Jeevan Reddy : Kuldip Singh
Muthulakshmi Achi
Versus
Meenakshi Achi
Case No. : 3644 of 1993
Date of Decision : 8/10/93
Advocates Appeared: Balachandran V. : Kumar K.V.Vijaya : Lalit U.R. : Mani K.K. : Ravi M.K.
Civil Procedure Code - Section 151 - Urban Lands Act, 1976 – Tenant – Jurisdiction – Claim of compensation - Appellant filed an application imp leading herself as a party-respondent to application - Commissioner filed a memo before the court praying that he may be permitted to issue a sale certificate in respect of said two items in of appellant - |Three applications and the memo filed by the Commissioner were considered together and disposed of by learned Single Judge by his - Learned Judge dismissed the applications filed by the first defendant - He directed the sale certificate to be issued in favor of appellant on her depositing the balance amount still outstanding on the date of his order – Held, This is likely to involve further delay - In context of all circumstances, we are of the opinion that it would be just and proper that the appellant is allowed to purchase, if not the entire Item least the house proper in Item along with appurtenant land to the extent subject to her paying an additional sum of three to within a period of two months from today – Court have made this dissection with respect to extent of open land to be sold to the appellant on the supposition that the vacant land appurtenant to the house is more than - In case appurtenant land is yards or less, then, it is obvious, whole of the Item shall be sold to the appellant- There shall, however, be no change in the consideration determined by us herein even if the appurtenant land is less - If any access needs to be provided to the house, an approach road with ten feet width may be provided to reach the nearest road - This aspect may be looked into and appropriate orders, if need be, he passed by learned Single Judge before whom the suit is pending - BUT then the question is how is sale in of the appellant to be effected in the light of the provisions of the Act - Court are of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it would be just and proper to direct the government to grant exemption under Section 20 of Act to the extent of the building and land now being permitted to be sold in favors of the appellant - Said exemption shall be granted within three months from today - Appellant shall produce a copy of this order before the government within three weeks from today - Let it be made clear that we are making this unusual direction in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case with a view to do complete justice between the parties. In case appellant fails to deposit the amount of three within the period prescribed herein direction made for sale of the house to appellant shall become inoperative and the order of division bench shall stand affirmed - In case of deposit of said amount of three same shall be to credit of the suit. Soon upon the deposit of the said sum advocate commissioner shall deliver possession of house property appellant - He shall also execute the sale deed there for soon after obtaining the exemption under Section 10 of the Act referred to hereinbefore – Appeal allowed
Judgment
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.
(1) LEAVE granted. Heard the counsel for the parties.
(2) C.S. No. 83 of 1965 on the original side of the Madras High court was instituted for partition and separate possession of the estate left by one Chidambaram Chettiar. With the consent of all the heirs, a preliminary decree was passed on 22/11/1968 directing the schedule mentioned properties to be divided into seven parts as between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6. Clause (2 of the preliminary decree provided "that the defendants 1 to 3 herein as executors do ascertain the debts due by the estate of T.S.PL. P. Chidambaram Chettiar, deceased and file a report in this court and sell sufficient properties of the estate for the early discharge of the debts due to the several creditors including those who have filed O.S. No. 49 of 1967 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottah subject, of course, to the finding about the actual amounts due to those creditors in O.S. No. 49 of 1967 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottah".
(3) THE debts due by the estate admittedly included certain tax arrears.
(4) AN Advocate-Commissioner.was appointed by the court inter alia to sell the properties as per clause (2 of the preliminary decree. On 16/09/1976 the Commissioner submitted his first report suggesting that the Theatre (Gaiety Theatre) be sold and debts due to the estate be discharged from its sale proceeds. On 6/04/1977, however, he submitted another report staling that the parties are anxious to keep the Theatre and, accordingly, recommended that the house and the vacant land with which we are concerned in this appeal, be sold. On 26/04/1977, the court directed the Commissioner to sell two items of immovable properties belonging to the estate, viz., (i) House, ground and premises bearing Nos. 5, 5-A and 5-B Williams Road, Tiruchirapalli and (ii) a vacant site known as Kallukuzhi situated at Tiruchirapalli. Accordingly, the Commissioner invited tenders. Two tenders were received, one from the appellant, Muthulakshmi Achi and the other from one Mohd. Ibrahim. The appellant offered to purchase Item No. 1 for Rs. 3,85,000.00 and the vacant site at the rate of 0.60p per sq.ft. Mohd. lbrahim, however, offered to purchase only the house but not the vacant land. The court accepted the offer of the appellant on 28/06/1978, directing her to deposit the consideration within two months. Proceedings were taken by the Commissioner to obtain the permission for sale (exemption?) of the said two items from the appropriate authority under the Urban Lands (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 (the Act). These proceedings, however, remained inconclusive inasmuch as the heirs of the deceased (plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 refused to cooperate by filing the requisite declarations etc.
(5) THE first defendant was adjudicated an insolvent on 12/08/1977. He was discharged from insolvency on 14/11/1980.
(6) IN the year 1981, the first defendant (Subramaniam Chettiar) filed two applications in the High court. Application No. 1718 of 1981 was filed by him to modify the order dated 28/06/1978 and to direct the Commissioner to divide the aforesaid Item Nos. 1 and 2 between the heirs. Application No. 1719 of 1981 was filed praying for stay of issue of sale certificate in respect of the said two items in favour of the appellant pending disposal of application No. 1718 of 1981. The appellant filed an application No. 1936 of 1981 for impleading herself as a party-respondent to the application No. 1718 of 1981. The Commissioner filed a memo before the court praying that he may be permitted to issue a sale certificate in respect of the said two items in favour of the appellant. The three applications and the memo filed by the Commissioner were considered together and disposed of by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 10/02/1982. The learned Judge dismissed the applications filed b
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
