E.CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. SALE OFFICER
LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-366
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on September 26,2019

E.Chandrasekaran Appellant
VERSUS
SALE OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Mr.E.Chandrasekaran, S/o late Ethiraj has come to this Court with a peculiar prayer for issuance of a writ of declaration, declaring that the sale conducted eight years prior to the filing of the writ petition, namely, on 29.08.2002 by the Sale Officer, Registrar of the District and Regional Deputy Registrar (Housing), Vellore Region, the first respondent herein and the consequential sale certificate in form 10 in CEP No.110/99-2000 dated 28.4.2004 issued in favour of the Special Officer, Vaniyambadi Cooperative Housing Society, Vaniyambadi, the second respondent herein in respect of the property is non est in law and not binding on the petitioner.
(2.) It has been averred in the affidavit that the petitioner's father Ethiraj (late) was a member of the second respondent society. Since his father availed financial assistance from the second respondent in loan account no.205 for constructing a house, due to unforeseen circumstances, his late father defaulted in the repayment of the installments due in respect of the loan. Therefore, arbitration proceedings were initiated in ARC No.527 of 1994/95 and an ex parte award dated 23.10.98 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,25,436.30p against the late father was passed. As the copy of the award was not communicated, the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards the loan account no.205. Thereafter, the second respondent initiated execution proceedings in CEP No.110/99-2000 before the first respondent seeking to sell the property that stood in the name of the petitioner's late father in a public auction. Although no bidder took part in the auction held on 18.4.2000, one another auction was conducted on 10.4.2002. Again no bidder took part in the auction. Finally, by way of set off, the second respondent society paid the debt of Rs.96,850/-. The C-2613 Vaniyambadi Cooperative Housing Society Limited also passed a resolution dated 27.1.2003 ratifying the action by the Secretary of the society seeking to confirm the auction in favour of the second respondent society. Thereafter, the society paid the bondage cost of Rs.4843/- in the revenue deposit account in State Bank of India, Vaniyambadi branch on 12.9.2002 and the sale was also confirmed in favour of the second respondent society. The certificate of sale dated 28.4.2004 was issued under Rule 129(3) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988, which was also registered as Document No.3900 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Vaniyambadi. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no proclamation of sale published in the locality as required under the rules. Therefore, the first respondent, without ascertaining whether the mandatory requirements under the Act and the Rules had been complied with, ought not to have proceeded to sell the property of a dead person.
(3.) In the meanwhile, a family arrangement was arrived at, whereby the property bearing Door No.930-931, Bajanai Koil Street, Amburpettai, Vaniyambadi Taluk comprised in T.S.No.568 Ward C, Block 24, Survey Nos.97 & 115 having an extent of 1536 sq.ft., together with the superstructure, had been settled in favour of the petitioner by a registered document bearing No.788 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Vaniyambadi and this petitioner has become the absolute owner of the property by virtue of the settlement deed. Thereafter, when the petitioner applied for encumbrance certificate, to his shock and surprise, he found that the sale certificate dated 28.4.2004 in favour of the second respondent was made in the encumbrance certificate. Accordingly, he submitted a representation to the Registrar (Housing), Chennai bringing to his notice the various lapses that had taken place while conducting the sale of his father's property. Thereafter, he had also applied under the Right to Information Act and a reply was also furnished on 4.6.2010 giving the particulars of the sale transaction. As per the reply given to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act , the petitioner was able to see that the sale conducted by the first respondent was highly irregular and illegal. Therefore, a detailed representation has been made on 15.6.2010 to the respondents bringing to their notice the various lapses and irregularities in the conduct of the sale. But, till date, the representation given by the petitioner has not been answered. Hence, the petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer to hold the sale conducted on 29.8.2002 and the sale certificate issued on 28.4.2004 in favour of the second respondent are non est in the eye of law and liable to be set aside.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.