Chandira VS Subramanian

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

S.PALANIVELU
Chandira – Appellant
Versus
Subramanian – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. R. Meenal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. P. Valliappan, Advocate.

ORDER

S. Palanivelu J.—The respondent is decree holder in OS No. 211 of 1996 on the file of Sub-court, Kallakurichi. It is a suit for recovery of money filed against the petitioner and the suit was decreed as prayed for. He filed E.P.No.3 of 1999 for attachment of sale of the immovable properties of this petitioner and accordingly attachment was effected and sale was also held by the Court on 14.7.2004 in which the respondent was the permitted decree holder in the auction. Pursuant to the sale, he complied with’ the relevant proceedings, deposited money and stamp papers for execution of the sale deed and the learned Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi also executed the sale deed dated 14.7.2004 which was handed over to the respondent also.

2. Thereafter, this petitioner filed an application in E.A. No.186 of 2003 under Order 21 Rule 90 r/w Sections 43, 94 and 151 C.P.C. challenging the auction conducted by the Court and knocked off in favour of this respondent. In her petition, she alleged as follows:

2(a) The respondent had filed a suit against the petitioner and obtained a simple money decree on 31.8.1998 and purporting to execute the decree, had brought the property of the petitione