Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 38087
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 22.07.2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 15.10.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.1750 of 2011 & 164 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2011 & 1 of 2012 C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1750 of 2011
1.A.Subbulakshmi
2.A.Shanmugavel Raju
3.A.Thirumalai Kumaraswamy
4.A.Chandrasekaran
5.A.Vallimayil ... Petitioners/Appellants Vs
1.The Sale Officer/Co-operative Sub-Registrar, Tirunelveli Central Co-operative Bank limited(Head Office), Vannarapettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003.
2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Perumalpuram, Tirunelveli - 627 007.
3.The General Manager, Tirunelveli Central Cooperative Bank Limited(Head Office), Vannarapettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. 4.P.Subramanian(died)
5.Nalini
6.Minor Sirambalaji
7.Minor Ajai Prameshwari (6th & 7th respondents through their guardian and mother of the 5th respondent)
8.S.Rajathi
9.S.Annamurugan
10.S.Ramadurai(died)
11.Rajeswari (R8 to R11 brought on record of LRs of the deceased R4 vide Court order dated 25.11.2014 made in M.P.(MD)No.
1 of 2014 in C.R.P(MD)No.1750 of 2011)
12.Vallithai 13.Sasikala
14.Minor Raju
15.Minor Maheswaran (The Minor 14th and 15th respondents are rep. through their mother and natural guardian/13th respondent)
Respondents 12 to 15 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased
10th respondent vide Court order dated 09.06.2023 made in C.M.P(MD)No.6914 of 2021 in C.R.P(MD)No.1750 of 2011)
... Respondents/Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, by setting aside the order passed in C.M.A.(C.S)No.48 of 2009 on the file of Special Appellate Tribunal/Principal District Court, Tirunelveli dated 30.06.2011, confirming the order passed in E.P.No.25/1996-1997 by Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tirunelveli, 22.12.2008.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Manimaran For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhiraj Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2 Mr.M.P.Senthil for R3 Mr.S.Kumar for R8, R9 & R11 Mr.H.Arumugam for R5 to R7 Mr.S.Balamurugan for R13 to R15 No appearance for R12 * * * * *
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.164 of 2012:
Tirunelveli District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Through its General Manager, V.N.Bharathy, D/o.Nallasamy, Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. ... Petitioner/Appellant/Petitioner Vs
1.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tirunelveli and Registrar of the District, Tirunelveli, Perumalpuram, Tirunelveli - 627 007.
2.The Sale Officer, Cooperative Societies, Sub-Registrar, Execution and Liquidation, Authorised Sale Officer, Tirunelveli District Central Co-operative Bank, Vannaparpettai, Tirunelveli - 3.
Now office at:
The Sale Officer, Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies Office, Tirunelveli, Perumalpuram, Tirunelveli - 627 007.
3.The Sub Registrar, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.
4.Subbulakshmi
5.Shanmugavelraj
6.Thirumalaikumarasamy
7.Chandrasekaran
8.Vallimayil
9.Subramanian (died)
10.S.Rajathi
11.S.Anna Murugan
12.S.Ramadurai (died)
13.Rajeswari (RR10 to 13 are brought on record as LRs of deceased R9, vide Court order dated 26.08.2019 made in M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2014 in C.R.P(MD)No.164 of 2012)
14.Vallithai 15.Sasikala
16.Minor Raju
17.Minor Maheswaran (16th and 17th Respondents are minors represented by their mother/
guardian the 15th respondent)
(Respondents 14 to 17 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased
12th respondent vide Court order, dated 07.09.2023, made in C.M.P(MD)Nos.8590 to 8592 of 2023 in C.R.P(MD)No.164 of 2012)
... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, as against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2011 passed in C.M.A. (CS)No.37 of 2009 of 2009 on the file of learned Principal District Judge (Co-operative Tribunal), Tirunelveli confirming the sale proceedings conducted by the 2nd respondent on 22.12.2008 in E.P.No.25/1996-1997 on the fie of the first respondent and subsequent confirmation of sale on 15.06.2009 by the first respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil For Respondents : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Manimaran for R4 to R8 Mr.D.Gandhiraj Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.S.Kumar for R10, R11, R13 & R14 No appearance for R15 * * * * *
COMMON ORDER
These revision petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the Co-operative Tribunal, Tirunelveli in C.M.A.(C.S)Nos.48 of 2009 and 37 of
2009, dated 22.12.2008, by way of two separate orders. (A).The facts which are not in dispute are as follows:
2.One S.Arumugam had borrowed a loan from District Central Cooperative Bank, Tirunelveli to a tune of Rs.6,91,000/-. Due to default in payment, the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Society had initiated proceedings and an award came to be passed on 30.09.1995 for a sum of Rs.8,93,745/- in A.R.C.No.91/1995-1996. For realisation of the said award amount, execution proceedings were initiated under Section 143 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act by the Co-operative Sub Registrar in E.P.No.25/1995-1996. In the execution proceedings, two properties were sold on 22.12.2008 to one Subramanian and the same was confirmed on 15.06.2009. Challenging the same as well as the confirmation, the creditor namely the Bank had filed C.M.A.(C.S)No.37 of 2009, the legal heirs of the judgment debtor had filed C.M.A.(C.S)No.48 of 2009 before the Co-operative Tribunal, Tirunelveli. The tribunal by way of common order dated 30.06.2011 had dismissed both the appeals confirming the order of the Sale Officer. Challenging the said order, the appellants in both the appeals had filed the above said revision petitions.
(B).Contentions of the counsel appearing on either side are as follows:-
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners have contended that the judgment debtor had passed away prior to the date of auction, without putting the legal heirs on notice, the auction was conducted and therefore, the auction is null and void;
4.No proper advertisement was given for conducting the public auction and therefore, the sale is liable to be set aside;
5.The sale should have been conducted within the place, where the property is located. However, the sale was conducted in a different place and therefore, the auction has to be set aside;
6.The total value of the property is more than Rs.30,00,000/-. Auctioning a portion of the property would have satisfied the entire award amount.
However, without considering the said aspect, the entire property was sold and hence, the auction is liable to be set aside on the ground of excessive execution;
7.The valuation of the property was not ascertained from the appropriate authorities before publishing the auction notice. There are no records to indicate the value of the first item or the value for which it was sold. Both the properties have been sold for a value of Rs.15.40/- lakhs. After the sale was completed, several irregularities were pointed out by the District Registrar. However, without considering the irregularities, the Sale Officer has proceeded to confirm the sale. Only two bidders have participated in the auction and therefore, there are no sufficient participants. The auctioneers have colluded among themselves and the bid was accepted for a lessor amount incurring loss to the creditor as well as the judgment debtor. Hence, the creditor as well as the judgment debtor have prayed for setting aside the sale and the confirmation of sale and to revise the order passed by the Co-operative tribunal.
8.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Sale Officer had contended that i) the legal heirs of the deceased borrower have produced two death certificates, which are contradictory to each other and therefore, the Co-operative tribunal was right in rejecting those documents and has arrived at a findings that the borrower has not established the fact that the borrower had passed away prior to the date of auction;
ii)He further contended that proper advertisement was given for conducting the public auction and thereafter, the auction was conducted and the bid was awarded to the highest bidder. All the queries raised by the Deputy Registrar were properly answered by the Sale Officer. Only thereafter, the sale
