Sales of property under contention must adhere to due process under co-operative laws, assessing the legitimacy of prior attachments and purchaser's good faith.

O R D E R

The petitioner has challenged the impugned Auction Notice proposing to auction the subject property, which was purchased by the petitioner on 22.09.2020 from the second respondent, who was then the President of the third respondent society.

2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, despite the petitioner having filed an application under Rule 135(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies Rules, 1988 on 29.10.2020, the first respondent has issued the impugned Auction Notice dated 14.05.2025. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject property was attached only on 13.10.2020, and that the petitioner filed the said application on 29.10.2020 under Rule 135(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-

operative Societies Rules, 1988. However, the impugned Auction Notice dated 14.05.2025 has been issued, proposing to auction the aforesaid property purchased by the petitioner, on 27.06.2025 at 11:00 a.m.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of this Court in Sudharsingh v. The Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Thuckalay Circle, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District and others, reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 6300.

4. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned auction notice was issued in violation of Rule 126 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988. It is submitted that, insofar as the attachment and sale of immovable property are concerned, specific reference is made to Rule 126(2)(d)(i) and (iv) of the said Rules. It is submitted that as per the said provisions, where attachment is required before sale, the officer shall, if possible, cause a notice of attachment to be served on the judgment-debtor personally, and such notice shall state that unless the amount due, along with interest and expenses, is paid within the time specified therein, the property shall be brought to sale.

5. It is further submitted that, as per Rule 126(2)(f)(i) of the Rules, the first respondent is required to ensure that the sale shall be subject to the prior encumbrances on the property, if any.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the third respondent.

7. There is no doubt that proceedings under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act , 1983, were initiated against the second respondent on 24.05.2019. Therefore, a surcharge proceeding was also initiated under Section 87 of the Act on 28.08.2019 against the second respondent, pursuant to the enquiry report dated 26.06.2019.

8. Pending the said surcharge proceedings, the petitioner purchased the property on 22.09.2020. The surcharge order was ultimately passed on 27.04.2021 against the second respondent and others.

9. The second respondent, along with others who had been proceeded against under Section 87 of the Act, has filed C.M.A. (CS) No.

8 of 2021. The learned Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, by an order dated 13.12.2024, dismissed all three C.M.As., including the one filed by the second respondent.

10. Reference to Rule 135(1), Rule 126(2)(d)(i), Rule 126(2)(d)(iv), and Rule 126(2)(f)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, is irrelevant. These provisions read as under:

Rule 135(1) of the Rules Rule 126(2)(d)(i), (iv), and (f)(i) of the Rules

135. Investigation of claims 126. Procedure in attachment and sale of and objections to attachment of immovable property.

property.

(1) ......

(1) Where any claim is preferred to, or any objection (2) In the attachment and sale or sale without is made to, the attachment of attachment of immovable property, th