In this civil revision petition, the fair and decreetal orders, dated 17.10.2006, passed in I.A.No.253 of 2005 in I.A.No.37 of 2005 in O.S.No.28 of 1909, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, are being assailed.
2. It is found that in respect of the properties belonging to Sri Venkatarajulu Trust, a scheme decree had been passed in O.S.No.28 of 1909, on the file of the Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai at Kumbakonnam. It is further found that shorn of unnecessary details, pursuant to the orders passed by the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3577 of 1988 setting aside the sale effected by the Trust and its Trustees in respect of certain items of the Trust properties, the petitioner being the successful bidder in the public auction held by the Court purchased certain items of the Trust properties, for a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- and accordingly, it is found that the sale in favour of the petitioner had been confirmed. Meanwhile, inasmuch as a suit in O.S.No.109 of 1990, had been filed by R.Sankaranarayana Reddiar and S.Alwar against the Trust and its Trustees for the relief of declaration that the right, title and interest of the Trust and its Trustees over the subject properties has become extinguished on account of taking over of the estate under the Tamil Nadu Act, 26 of 1948 and for consequential injunction restraining the Trust and Trustees from negotiating or otherwise including the sale of the suit property through Court and even though the said suit had come to be dismissed on 25.02.1992, it is found that as against the Judgement and Decree passed in the said suit, A.S.No.412 of 1992 had been preferred on the file of this Court and it is further found that in C.M.P.No.8229 of 1992, this Court had granted an order of interim injunction. It is, thus, found that on account of the above said order of interim injunction granted by this Court, though the sale had been confirmed in favour of the petitioner as regards the purchase of certain items of the Trust properties by him as the highest bidder in the Court auction, neither the sale certificate could be issued nor the sale deed could be executed in his favour. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has got himself impleaded in the proceedings of A.S.No.412 of 1992. Be that as it may, it is found that the amount deposited by the petitioner in the Court is earning interest and it is further found that a substantial amount is now lying in the Court deposit. While so, the Trustees of the Trust above mentioned seem to have filed an application in I.A.No.37 of 2005 seeking permission to construct a shopping complex in the property comprised in T.S.Nos.2935 and 2936 and also seeking permission to withdraw the amount lying in the Court deposit i.e., by way of the sale proceeds deposited by the petitioner towards the purchase of certain items of the Trust properties of the Trust in the Court auction. It is found that the above said application was entertained by the Court below and thereby, it is further found that the petitioners therein, namely, the Trustees of the Trust above mentioned, were granted permission to withdraw the amount lying in the Court deposit on certain conditions. Now, it is the case of the petitioner that on coming to know of the same, inasmuch as, according to him, the amount lying in the Court deposit being the amount tendered by him for the purchase of certain items of the Trust properties in the public auction and inasmuch as neither the sale certificate nor the sale deed had been executed in his favour by the Trust and its Trustees as enjoined upon them and inasmuch as the same could also not be effected on account of the order of injunction passed in A.S.No.412 of 1992, according to him, the amount lying in the Court deposit do not belong to the Trust till the sale deed is executed in his favour and further according to him, the interest accrued on the amount lying in the Court deposit only belongs to him and he is entitled to withdraw the amount, for which he is contemplating to file necessary application and meanwhile, if the Trustees are permitted to withdraw the amount, inclusive of the interest, the same would cause irreparable loss and hardship to him and therefore, he moved I.A.No.252 of 2005 restraining the Trust and its Trustees to withdraw the amount lying in the Court deposit and also I.A.No.253 of 2005 to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.37 of 2005 and to declare that the Trust and its Trustees are not entitled to withdraw the amount lying in the Court deposit.
3. It is found that the Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties and also the materials placed, seeing that on account of the injunction order prevailing as ordered in A.S.No.412 of 1992, the sale deed could not be executed in favour of the petitioner and also finding that inasmuch as the sale deed had not been executed pursuant to his purchase of certain items of the Trust properties in the Court auction though the said sale had also been confirmed in his favour, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, passed an order in I.A.No.252 of 2005 directing the petitioner to approach the High Court and get appropriate orders so as to effect the execution of the sale deed in his favour and also further ordered that after the lapse of one month from the date of execution of the sale in his favour, the Trust and its Trustees are entitled to withdraw the amount lying in the Court deposit and accordingly, the Court had also in I.A.No.253 of 2005, considering the above said directions passed in I.A.No.252 of 2005, held that the order, dated 09.09.2005, passed in I.A.No.37 of 2005, is accordingly amended in deference to the order passed in I.A.No.252 of 2005 and disposed of the said applications. Impugning the order passed in I.A.No.253 of 2005 alone, it is found that the petitioner has filed this civil revision petition.
4. It is found that the petitioner has not challenged the order passed in I.A.No.252 of 2005. In any event, no material as such has been placed before this Court to show that the petitioner had impugned the order passed in I.A.No.252 of 2005. It is, therefore, found that the order passed in I.A.No.252 of 2005 has become final and in that interlocutory application, as the Court below had directed the petitioner to approach the High Court and seek necessary orders for the execution of the sale deed in his favour in A.S.No.412 of 1992, and also permitted the Trust and its Trustees to withdraw the amount lying in the Court deposit only after one month from the date of the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, it is found that the further order of the Court passed in I.A.No.253 of 2005 is only a consequential order and in such view of the matter, when no challenge had been made by the petitioner to the main order passed in I.A.No.252 of 2005, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the attempt on the part of the petitioner only to challenge the order passed in I.A.No.253 of 2005 would not enure to his benefit in any manner, inasmuch as the order passed in I.A.No.253 of 2005 is only the resultant order passed to the main order in I.A.No.252 of 2005. In this connection, the learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court, reported in AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3760 [Ram Prakash vs. Charan Kaur and another], wherein it has been held that in connected proceedings / suits, if the order passed in one suit / proceedings had allowed to become final in the absence of appeal, the same would operate as res judicata in sofar as the appeal filed in respect of the order passed in the other connected suit / proceedings. In any event, as above found, when the order passed in I.A.No.253 of 2005 is only a consequential order flowing from the order passed in I.A.No.252 of 2005, in my considered opinion, without the challenge put to the order passed in I.A.No.252 of 2005, the endeavour of the petitioner only to challenge the order passed in I.A.No.253 of 2005 cannot be entertained as such.
5. Now coming to the merits of the case, the grievance of the petitioner is that though he being the highest bidder in the Court acution and consequently having deposited the amount in the Court as ordered and the sale also having been confirmed, without the execution of the sale deed in his favour, the Trust and its Trustees are not entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by him pursuant to the Court auction and it is his case that till the sale deed is executed in his favour, the Trust and its Trustees are not entitled to seek any claim to withdraw the amount lying in the Court deposit and therefore, according to him, the order passed in I.A.No.37 of 2005, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. However, it is found that on account of the injunction order passed in A.S.No.412 of 1992, the Trust and its Trustees are unable to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. It is, thus, found that the fault is not on the part of the Trust and its Trustees in the delay of the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. In such view of the matter, according to petitioner, he has got himself impleaded in the proceedings before the High Court in A.S.No.412 of 1992. As rightly determined by the Court below, it is for the petitioner to move the High Court to seek for necessary redressal in the manner known to law so as to pave the way for the execution of the sale deed in his favour pursuant to the confirmation of the sale in his favour. Accordingly, it is found that the Court below has resultantly, held that only on the sale deed being executed in favour of the petitioner and one month thereafter only, the Trust and its Trustees would be entitled to withdraw the amount lying in the Court deposit. It is, therefore, found that the Court below had taken into consideration the interest of the parties concerned and finding that neither the petitioner nor the Trust and its Trustees could be blamed and the impasse having been created in the matter only on account of the injunction order passed in A.S.No.412 of 1992 and accordingly, gave the above directions in the applications preferred by the petitioner in I.A.Nos.252 and 253 of 2005. Accordingly, it is found that the Court below had also passed suitable orders that necessary amendments would enure to the order, dated 09.09.2005, passed in I.A.No.37 of 2005. In such view of the matter, when it is found that the Court below had passed an order taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case in the right perspective and also taking into account the rights and interest of the respective parties and also finding that neither of the parties could be blamed for the situation that had arisen, accordingly, passed the appropriate orders as above mentioned and in such view of the matter, I am unable to find any error or mistake in the order of the Court below and in such view of the matter, it is found that the impugned order of the Court below does not call for any interference from this Court.
6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the decisions reported in (1997) 3 SCC 1 [K.S.Vidyanadam and others vs. Vairavan], 2008 (4) CTC 355 [Swami Shankaranad (D) by Lrs vs. Mahant Sri Sadguru Sarnanand, etc. and others] and 2011 (6) CTC 112 [Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals vs. Ramaniyam Real Estates P.Ltd. and another]. The principles of law outlined in the above cited decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand.
7. In view of the foregoing reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
To:
The Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.
.