Hon'ble RAVEENDRAN, J.—Appellant obtained a money decree for Rs.4200/- against one Mokshammal on 28.2.1972. He levied execution (EP No.466/1974) in respect of the said decree, wherein the suit property (agricultural land measuring 2 acres 22 cents) and two other properties (which are not the subject matter of present proceedings) belonging to Mokshammal were attached on 29.12.1974.

2. The Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, 1975 (‘Debt Relief Act’ for short) enacted by the Tamil Nadu Legislature came into force with effect from 10.1.2005. Section 4 of the said Act stayed all further proceedings in applications for execution of decrees in which relief was claimed against an agriculturist until the expiry of one year from the date of commencement of the said Act. The proviso thereto enabled the court to pass such orders as it deemed necessary for custody or preservation of the property under attachment. As Mokshammal was an ‘agriculturist’ as defined under the said Act, the execution proceedings in regard to the decree obtained by the appellant against her were closed, by order dated 15.2.1975. The moratorium period of one year under the Debt Relief Act was subsequently extended from time to time till 14.7.1979.

3. After the moratorium period ended, the appellant initiated execution proceedings afresh (EP No.276 of 1980). As the suit property had already been attached on 29.12.1974 in the earlier execution proceedings, and that attachment continued even during the moratorium period, the appellant did not seek any fresh attachment. In the said execution proceedings the attached suit property was brought to sale. At the court auction sale held on 6.6.1984, the appellant purchased the suit property. The auction sale in favour of appellant was confirmed on 30.7.1985 and a sale certificate was issued to him. According to appellant possession of the suit property was also delivered to him through court on 10.9.1985.

4. The judgment debtor Mokshammal filed an application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘Code’ for short) to set aside the sale. The sale was set aside on 10.1.1986. However the appeal filed by the appellant against the said order was allowed by the Subordinate Judge and by order dated 15.3.1993 the order of the executing court dated 10.1.1986 setting aside the sale was reversed. The revision petition filed by Mokshammal against the said order was dismissed on 5.10.1993. Thus the attempts by Mokshammal to get the sale set aside failed and the auction sale attained finality.

5. In the meanwhile, the Judgment-Debtor Mokshammal sold 75 cents out of the suit property to one Chandra on 17.2.1978 who in turn sold it to Kiliammal on 19.8.1981. The remaining 1.47 acre was also sold by Mokshammal to one Chand Basha under another sale deed dated 18.12.1980. Chand Basha and Kiliammal sold their respective portions measuring 1.47 acres and 75 cents to the respondent under sale deeds dated 27.1.1982 and 6.3.1982. Respondent thus claimed to be the owner in possession of the suit schedule property measuring 2 acres 22 guntas. The respondent filed a suit in the court of District Munsiff, Tiruvallur (O.S. No. 458/1985) against the appellant seeking a declaration of his title over the suit property and for a permanent injunction to restrain the appellant from interfering with his possession over the same. In the said suit, the respondent contended that on the enactment of the Debt Relief Act, the execution against Mokshammal was closed on 15.2.1975 and as a result the attachment dated 29.12.1974 over the suit property came to an end; and therefore when portions of suit property were sold by Mokshammal to Chandra and Chand Basha or when the suit property was subsequently sold to him on 27.1.1982 and 6.3.1982, it was not subject to any attachment and therefore he became the absolute owner thereof. He further contended that the court sale in execution on 6.6.1984 in favour of the appellant, was on the erroneo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document