Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 31604
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.11.2022 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN C.S.No. 394 of 2019
1.Mr.P.R.Rajaseharan
2.Mr.P.R.Balaji
3.Mr.P.R.Vijaykumar ...Plaintiffs Vs.
1.Indian Bank, ARMB-II, Represented by its General Manager, No.55, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai - 600 008.
2.Manohar Prasad Proprietor, M/s.Asian Capital Consolidated Fund, No.2, Sarangapani Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.
3.M/s.J.D.A.Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, 1st Floor, Casa Blanca Complex, Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
4.Kannammal
5.Dilli (Alias) Ayyakkanu Naicker
6.Munusamy Naicker
7.Chinnadurai 8.Munniamal
9.Padmavathy Ammal
10.M/s.Ravishankar Industries Pvt.Ltd.
(Formerly known as Ravishankar Films (P) Ltd., No.2, Sarangapani Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. 11.Manohar Prasad
12.M/s.Asian Capital Consolidates & Holdings Pvt. Ltd., No.2, Sarangapani Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.
13.Central Bank of India Rep.by its Authorised Officer No.28, II Main Road, Kasthuribai Nagar, Adyar Chennai - 600 020.
14.Palaniappa Estates Rep.by its Proprietor, S.Annamalai
22/77, Venkatarathinam Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020
15.M.Goapalakrishnan Former Chairman & Managing Director, Indian Bank, Old No.11 - New No.5, III Main Road, Nehru Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020.
16.S.Maheswari
17.S.Palaniappan ...Defendants Prayer : Petition filed under Order VII Rule 1 CPC read with Order IV Rule 1 of OS Rules, to pass a Judgment and Decree against the defendants as under:
a) For a Declaration that the plaintiffs are not bound by the proceedings created by M/s.Ravishankar Industries Pvt.Ltd, the 10th Defendant and the 1st Defendant Bank in respect of the plaint schedule property in O.A.No.375 of 1997 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal- I, Chennai, as they are the bonafide purchasers of the suit property or for any reasons, if this Hon'ble Court holds that the plaintiffs are not the bonafide purchasers, direct the defendants 4 to 9, 14 & 15 to pay such sum that may be due and payable in respect of the plot purchased by the plaintiffs covered by the Debts Recovery proceedings initiated as against the borrowers and the guarantors by the 1st Defendant and the properties covered therein and direct the first defendant to clear the encumbrance by executing a deed of disclaimer over the plaint schedule property;
b) For a Declaration that the purported compromise order dated
21.11.2000 passed in O.A.No.375 of 1997 as merged with DRC No.187 of 2001 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, is illegal, invaild and non-est in the eyes of law, and consequently not binding upon the plaintiffs and their property, more fully described in the plaint schedule hereunder;
c) For a Declaration that the sale certificate issued in favour of the 3rd Defendant by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai pursuant to DRC No.187 of 2001 dated 03.01.2007 is illegal, invalid and non-est in the eyes of law, and not binding upon the plaintiffs and their property, d) For a permanent injunction restraining the 1st and 3rd defendants or anyone claiming through them from enforcing the rights derived pursuant to Sale Certificate dated 03.01.2007 issued subsequent to the purported compromise dated 21.11.2000 as merged with DRC No.187 of 2001 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, as against the plaintiffs or the suit property, more fully described in the plaint schedule hereunder;
e) for the costs of the suit.
For plaintiffs :Mr.R.Thiagarajan For D1 :M/s.Aiyar & Dolia For D3 :Mr.G.Mohanakrishnan For D2, D4 to D17 : No Appearance
ORDER
The suit has been filed for a declaration that the plaintiff was not bound by the encumbrances created by M/s.Ravishankar Industries Pvt.Ltd. the 10th defendant and the 1st defendant/Indian Bank with respect to the property mentioned in the schedule to the plaint which was the subject matter of O.A.No.375 of 1997 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai and that the plaintiff is bonafide purchaser of the suit property and for a declaration that a compromise order dated 21.11.2000 passed in O.A.No.375 of 1997 has merged with DRC No.187 of 2001 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai and is invalid and for a declaration that the sale certificate issued in favour of the 3rd defendant by the Debt Recovery Officer, Chennai pursuant to DRC No.187 of 2001 dated 03.01.2007 is invalid and for a permanent injunction, restraining the first and third defendants from enforcing the rights derived pursuant to the sale certificate dated 03.01.2007 and for the costs of the suit.
2. Suit summons had been directed to the defendants and since they had not filed their written statements, they had been set ex-parte by an order dated 01.03.2021.
3. The plaintiff was thereafter directed to tender evidence. The first plaintiff Mr.P.R.Rajaseharan examined himself as P.W.1 and filed his proof affidavit and marked Exs.P1 to P27.
4. Heard Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the plaintiff.
5. The short facts are that, the 4th-9th defendants had availed loan from the first defendant/Indian Bank, ARMB-II at Chennai. They did not repay the loan. Therefore, the first defendant had initiated proceedings under the Debt Recovery Act, 1993 in O.A.No.375 of 1997 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal - I at Chennai. The 10th defendant had entered into an one time settlement proposal with the first defendant and as security thereof, the property belonging to the plaintiff was offered as security. As a matter of fact the property actually belonged to the 4th-9th defendants who had executed a power of attorney in favour of M/s. Palaniappa Estates who was shown as the 11th defendant herein represented by its proprietor Mr.P.L.Sundaram but such power of attorney did not authorize him to borrow money. However, it is complained by the plaintiff that the first defendant and the 10th-14th defendants had colluded with each other and brought out a compromise in O.A.No.375 of 1997 by which they had created an encumbrance over the property. Subsequently the property which originally belonged to 4-9 defendants was brought to sale, consequent to sale certificate issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in D.R.C.No.187 of 2001.
6. In this connection, evidence had been adduced by the plaintiff/P.W.1. The General Power of Attorney dated 27.03.1992. executed by Mrs. Kanammal and others to M/s. Palaniappa Estates, the 14th defendant was marked as Ex.P1. The Patta and Chitta in the name of the plaintiff was marked as Ex.P2 and the Adaangal Extract pertaining to the suit property was marked as Ex.P3. The planning permission given by the Commissioner of Chithlapakkam Panchayat was marked as Ex.P4. The Plaintiff therefore stated that he is the owner of the property. The office copy of the complaint dated 29.06.2018 by the plaintiff to the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch (Anti Land Grabbing Cell), Vepery, Chennai was marked as Ex.P5. The copy of electricity-temporary power supply card was marked as Ex.P6. The copy of the encumbrance certificate was marked as Ex.P7. The certified copy of the memorandum of understanding was marked as Ex.P9. The certified copy of the Original Application in O.A.No.375 of 1997 was marked as Ex.P10. The Memo of Compromise in C.S.No.376 of 2001 was marked as Ex.P11. The certified copy of the Recovery Certificate in D.R.C.No.187/2001 was marked as Ex.P12. The order of attachment by the Recovery Officer, DRT-I was marked as Ex.P13. The certified copy of the Auction proceedings in D.R.C No.187/2001 was marked as Ex.P14. The certifica
