Plaintiff has no semblance of right over the suit property.

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Sale of property under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short “T.P. Act”) lead to number of litigations.

2. The plaintiff, who is the son of Mortgagor has filed the Suit for declaration that the auction sale held on 30.5.2006 in respect of the Suit property is null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from taking over possession of the Suit property and other reliefs.

3. A. No. 1816 of 2007 has been filed by the third defendant-Auction Purchaser to reject the Plaint. For convenience, the Parties are referred in their original rank in the Suit.

4. The property-House and Ground Bearing New No. 39,Audiappa Naicken Street, Sowcarpet,Chennai-600 079, originally belonged to one Pattas Kaver, who was plaintiffs Grandmother. The said Pattas Kaver died on 2.2.1988. Pattas Kaver executed a Registered Will dated 30.4.1984, by which, she bequeathed her immovable property in favour of her daughter-in-law viz., plaintiffs Mother. The plaintiffs Mother and Father Dharamchand Nahar have jointly borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- from the first defendant/ Muthialpet Benefit Fund and has executed a Registered Mortgage Deed dated 12.9.1993.

5. The case of the plaintiff is that in the said Will dated 30.4.1984 executed by Pattas Kaver, the plaintiff is also entitled to 1/6th share in the property. The said Will dated 30.4.1984 was also probated by the Court In O.P. No. 295 of 1990. The probate was revoked in another proceedings. The plaintiff seeks to set aside the Public Sale Auction held under Section 69 of T.P. Act on the ground that the auction conducted by the first respondent on 30.5.2006 is a collusive one. According to the applicant, on the date of auction, the third defendant-Auction Purchaser did not appear and the valuable property has been knocked away for a very low price and the Public Auction is vitiated by illegalities and irregularities and the plaintiff seeks for a declaration that the auction held on 30.5.2006 is null and void.

6. The third defendant, who is the Auction Purchaser has filed the Application to reject the Plaint. It is averred that the Plaint does not disclose the cause of action. In due exercise of the power of sale under Section 69 of T.P. Act., the Suit property was sold in the auction sale on 24.7.2006 for Rs. 46,00,000/-, which was paid by the third defendant to the first defendant-Mortgagee in discharge of the Mortgage dues. The Sale Deed was executed and registered on 8.8.2006 by the first defendant-Mortgagee after notice to the Mortgagors. It is further averred that the plaintiff has filed W.P. No. 16033 of 2006 against Union of India- Mortgagee and the fourth defendant-Jal Shree Bhai/plaintiffs Mother. In that Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. No. 15739 of 2006 was filed seeking for an interim injunction restraining the auction sale, which was dismissed by this Court on 4.7.2006 observing that the plaintiff has no subsisting right in the Suit property. It is further averred that Dharamchand Nahar and his wife Jai Shree Bhai have executed the Mortgage in favour of the first defendant and the plaintiff, who is one of the sons of Dharamchand Nahar has no subsisting right in the property and hence, there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to challenge the auction sale held on 30.5.2006.

7. Taking me through number of earlier litigations, the learned counsel for the applicant/third defendant has submitted that keeping in view the earlier litigations the present Suit is clearly an abuse of process of Court. It was further submitted that in view of the observations in W.P.M.P. No. 15739 of 2006 in W.P. No. 16033 of 2006, the plaintiff having no subsisting legal right cannot maintain the Suit. The learned counsel for the third defendant/Auction Purchaser has further submitted that the Plaint does not disclose a cause of action and the Suit is not maintainable. It was further urged that the plaintiff is a stooge in the hands of the Mortgagors and