JUDGMENT :

(Prayer:- These second appeals have been filed under Section 100 C.P.C.,

(i) against the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2009 made in A.S.No.129 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, in reversing the well considered judgment and decree dated 16.02.2005 made in O.S.No.129 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Salem(prayer in SA.No.131 of 2011).

(ii) against the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2009 made in A.S.No.129 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, in reversing the well considered judgment and decree dated 16.02.2005 made in O.S.No.129 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Salem(prayer in SA.No.434 of 2011).)

1. Aggrieved against the judgement and decree dated 13.10.2009 passed by the II Additional Subordinate Judge in A.S.No.29 of 2008 reversing the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2005 passed in O.S.No.129 of 2003 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Salem, third defendant has filed S.A.No.131 of 2011 while the defendants 1 and 2 have filed S.A.No.434 of 2011.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are herein after referred to by the same nomenclature as referred to in the Original Suit.

3. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows:

The plaintiff is a partnership firm and it is manufacturing Metalic Sulphur. It owns its factory constructed in an area of 1.41 acres of land in S.No. 107/2 and 107/7 in Athanoor Ayeepalayam. Rasipuram Taluk. The total worth of the machineries and buildings comes around a sum of Rs.75,00,000/-. The plaintiff has raised a loan of Rs.19.75 lakhs from the defendant. The plaintiff has received a notice dated 29.11.1966 stating that the factory premises are going to be auctioned on 10.12.1996. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.2110/1996 seeking injunction restraining the 1st defendant from proceeding with the sale. While the suit was pending, it appears that the auction was held on 15.2.2000 for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs and the sale was also confirmed in favour of the 3rd defendant by the Head Office of the 2nd defendant on 6.3.2001 and the possession was handed over on 7.7.2000, without following due procedure and effecting proper publication. According to the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 have failed to give wide publicity for the sale. While so, the 2nd defendant again issued a notice on 16.3.2001 demanding payment of Rs.45,02,205.80. Once the property has been sold, there is no necessity warrant for issuing a fresh demand notice. Hence the plaintiff has come forward with a suit in O.S.No.129 of 2003, seeking for declaration that the sale held on 15.2.2000 is illegal and void and also for consequential permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from claiming any right under the void sale and for costs.

4. Resisting the suit, the 1st defendant filed a Written Statement, inter alia, contending that the sale and confirmation of the same in favour of the 3rd defendant was done by following due procedure as contemplated under law and there was no irregularity at all. The loan amount was proclaimed and the plaintiff unit was taken possession by the 2nd defendant Corporation on 19.6.1996 and thereafter, on 15.2.2000, the land, building and machinery were brought for re-auction by fixing the upset price as Rs.4 lakhs. This was intimated by a letter dated 8.2.2000 to the plaintiff. The highest bidder paid the amount of Rs.10 Lakh and taken the possession of the land, building and mechinery on 07.07.2000. Therefore, according to the 1st defendant, the sale was conducted in proper way by giving wide publicity in Daily Thanthi on 06.02.2000 and the information was also given to the plaintiff. The suit is not properly valued. With these averments, the 1st defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. A Written Statement was also filed by the 3rd defendant, stating that the sale in favour of the 3rd defendant was perfectly valid and legal a