The validity of auction sales in execution proceedings is upheld where notice requirements are satisfied, and third-party claims based on subsequent purchases without title are dismissed as legally untenable.

ORDER :

R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

1. The instant revision petition has been filed by one Rajeswari who is a third party to O.S.No.731 of 1985 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli challenging the dismissal of E.A.No. 637 of 2005 in E.P.No.45 of 1989 in the said suit.

(A) Facts leading to the filing of this revision are as follows:

2. The property in Survey No.1152/2 having an extent of east-west measurement of 36 feet and north-south measurement of 40 .feet was originally owned by one Valliammal through a registered document dated 20.06.1921. After her lifetime, her daughter Nagammal and Nagammal's son Namachivayam were in possession and enjoyment of the same. The said Nagammal and Namachivayam have executed a registered settlement deed in favour of Nagammal's two other daughters namely Pappathiammal and Kunjammal for an extent of 15X19 feet out of 36X40 feet.

3. The said Pappathiammal and Kunjammal had mortgaged the said property with a Co-operative Housing Society. Due to non-payment of the dues, the extent of 15X19 feet area was brought to the auction which was purchased by one Rajarethinam Pillai through a sale certificate dated 06.08.1970 and he had taken delivery of the said property also. The auction purchaser Rajarethinam Pillai had executed a registered sale deed in favour of Chinnadurai (Plaintiff in the present suit) to a larger extent of36X40 feet in the said survey number.

4. The said Chinnadurai in view of certain disputes raised by his vendor Rajarethinam Pillai and mortgagors namely Kunjammal and Pappathiammal, had filed O.S.No.930 of 1982 (Renumbered as O.S.No.731 of 1985) on the file of the Subordinate Court, Trichy for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. In the said suit, only an extent of 15X19 sq.feet was shown as suit schedule property. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 25.03.1985. Challenging the same, the plaintiff Chinnadurai had filed A.S.No.142 of 1986 before the District Court, Trichy. The First Appellate Court was pleased to allow the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for on 23.12.1987.

5. The decree holder had filed E.P.No.61 of 1988 for taking delivery of possession of 15X19 feet extent and he had also taken delivery.Hence. E.P.No.61 of 1988 was closed on 16.11.1988.

6. The First Appellate Court while decreeing the suit had allowed the appeal with cost of the plaintiff. For non-payment of the cost, the plaintiff had filed E.P.No.45 of 1989 as against the defendants 2 to 4 for attaching the immovable property and bringing the said property for sale. In the description of property in the execution petition, the entire 36X40 sq.feet was shown as schedule of property excluding 15X19 sq.feet that was already taken delivery by the decree holder.

7. Though notices were served upon all the respondents, they have not chosen to appear and the property was brought to sale on04.09.1991.

8. One Thangappa S/o.Appavu Pillai was declared as auction purchaser. The sale was confirmed on 11.11.1991 and the sale certificate was also issued on 11.11.991.

9. The Court auction purchaser namely Thangappa had filed E.A.No. 651 of 1996 to take delivery of the said property. Pending the said application, a claim petition was filed by the third party in the suit namely Namachivayam in E.A.No.637 of 2005. The said Namachivayam had passed away and in his place, the present revision petitioner namely M.Rajeswari got herself substituted as purchaser of the property from Namachivayam under a registered sale deed dated 23.08.1995. The said claim petitio