T. Vijendradas & Another vs M. Subramanian & Others

4. With a view to enforce a statutory charge as laid down in the 1920 Act, the Municipality filed a suit, which was marked as O.S. No. 986 of 1973. Sakunthala was not a party therein. Venugopal although entered his appearance in the suit but at the subsequent stages, did not appear. Yet again he did not inform the court about the fact that he had sold the property in favour of Sakunthala. He allegedly sent an information to Sakunthala in regard thereto, but admittedly, the latter was sent at a wrong address.

The said suit was decreed in 1978. The Municipality filed an application for execution of the said decree, which was marked as E.P. No. 2620 of 1978. The property in question was put up on auction sale, the upset price wherefor was fixed at Rs.20,000/- by an order dated 19.03.1979. However, as allegedly no buyer was available, an application for reduction of upset price was filed being E.A. No. 284 of 1979 for bringing it down from Rs.20,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. It was, however, directed to be reduced to Rs. 10,000/-, but therefor no notice was issued to the judgment debtor, as is required in terms of Order XXI, Rule 66 CPC. Yet again without any other order being passed for further reduction of the upset price, the suit property was sold on auction for a sum of Rs.8,010/- in favour of one Manickam, original defendant no. 1, on 06.08.1979.

6. Manickam allegedly sold the said property in favour of one M/s Ramans for a sum of Rs.41,066/- by a registered deed of sale dated 22.08.1981. Having learnt that the property in question had been sold in auction, Sakunthala filed a suit for declaration and possession, against her vendor, his mother and wife on or about 27.08.1981. The plaintiff then allegedly had no knowledge in regard to the sale of the said property in favour of one M/s Ramans. In her written statement, defendant no. 1 denied that she was the wife of the judgment-debtor and disclosed that she had sold the property during the pendency of the said suit. M/s Ramans despite knowledge of the pendency of the suit sold the said property in favour of the appellants herein. M/s Ramans and the appellants herein thereafter on an application made in that behalf were impleaded as defendants in the said suit. Indisputably, in their written statement, the appellants raised a plea that the Municipality was a necessary party. The said suit was decreed by a judgment and decree dated 19.12.1996. An appeal thereagainst preferred by the appellants has been dismissed by a judgment and order dated 12.01.1999. A Second Appeal preferred by the appellants has also been dismissed.

11. Although not very relevant, but we may notice that the vendor had never paid the arrears of property tax to the Municipality. He had other properties and the quantum of tax for which the suit was filed was only Rs.406.76. A further finding of fact had been arrived at that despite knowledge, no notice was sent to Sakunthala at her known address i.e. Sirukoodalpatti Village which was the address disclosed in the sale deed, but sent to another address. In the suit only the registered cover had been filed but the contents thereof had not been disclosed. It was obligatory on the part of the appellant to bring the office copy of the said notice on the record.

On the basis of the aforementioned findings, the courts below had arrived at a conclusion that Venugopal had not been acting bona fide and an attempt had been made to create evidence to cover up his fraud.

debtors title by filing a suit against the auction- purchaser, the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor shall be necessary parties to the suit.

The auction-purchaser should have a right to sue the decree-holder. Where a third party challenges the judgment-debtors title by filing a suit against the auction-purchaser the decree-holder and judgment-debtor should be necessary parties, and in that suit the court shall direct the decree-holder to refund the money to the auction-purchaser.

debtors title by filing a suit against the auction- purchaser, the decree-holder and the judgment- debtor shall be necessary parties to the suit;

Are the Appellants bound by the decree ?