CRP.(NPD)No.1341/2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.04.2022

CORAM:

Mr. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

CRP.(NPD)No.1341 of 2022

and C.M.P.Nos.7032 and 7935 of 2022

M.Ramalingam

... Petitioner

Vs

Bhuvaneswari Ramalingam (dead),

1.Jayalakshmi Pattabiraman

2.Anuratha Thanigainayagam

3.R.Vijayan

...Respondents

PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order dated 15.03.2022 passed in

I.A.No.136 of 2014 in O.S.No.288 of 2005 on the file of the Mahila Court,

Chengelpet.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.Sharath Chandran

For Respondents

:

Mr.G.Prabhakaran

Page 1 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.(NPD)No.1341/2022

O R D E R

This Revision is filed challenging the order of the trial Court passed in

I.A.No.136 of 2014 in O.S.No.288 of 2005 for auctioning a certain property

under Section 4 of the Partition Act.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the respondents. In the course of the final

decree proceedings in a partition suit in O.S.No.288 of 2005, an Application

was taken in I.A.No.136 of 2014 for sale of the property under the Partition

Act. The Court has appointed a Commission but, literally has out sourced all

its duty to the Commissioner. In other words, it did not even fix the upset

price or had gone for proclamation and in the process has violated the ratio of

the Judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Appu alias

Subramania Patter Vs. O.Achuta Menon [ILR 49 Mad 333], Jagannathan

Vs. Angamuthu Pillari [AIR 1990 Mad 226] and the Judgement in

Ramaswami Naicker Vs. Nagammal [ 83 LW 199].

Page 2 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.(NPD)No.1341/2022

3.Both sides made a joint statement that the procedure adopted is not

consistent with law.

4.1 It is now evident that the order passed in I.A.No.136 of 2014 in

O.S.No.288 of 2005 shall go. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly

allowed and the order passed in I.A.No.136 of 2014 in O.S.No.288 of 2005 is

set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Mahila Court, Chengelpet for

the Court to instruct the Commissioner appropriately and along the legal lines

to enable the Commissioner to conduct the auction of the property. In

particular, the trial Court is directed :

(a) To appoint an engineer to assist the Commissioner to fix the value

of the property;

(b)To fix the base price for the property after hearing the parties to the

litigation or their counsels;

(c) To direct the Commissioner to come up with a schedule for public

auction;

(d) To decide on e-auction through popular private websites like

99acres.com, depending on the location and the marketability of the

Page 3 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.(NPD)No.1341/2022

property.

4.2 The parties can also bring in purchasers with their offers presented in a

sealed covers, and to go for the highest price bidder. The trial Court is also

directed to dispose of the matter within a period of six (6) months, which is to

commence from 01.06.2022. No costs. Consequently, the connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

28.04.2022

Index : Yes/No

Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order

Tsg/dk

Page 4 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.(NPD)No.1341/2022

N.SESHASAYEE, J.,

Tsg/dk

To

The Mahila Court,

Chengelpet.

CRP.(NPD)No.1341 of 2022

and C.M.P.Nos.7032 and 7935 of 2022

28.04.2022

Page 5 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis