- (1.) Challenging the order dated 20.7.2001 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Review Application Nos. 8 & 9 of 1997 filed by the respondent herein whereby a learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the same, the appellant has filed these appeals.
(2.) The respondent herein was the owner of the suit vacant land in question. In 1959, the suit land was leased out for five years by the respondent to the appellant herein. On 3.3.1965, the tenancy was renewed for another period of three years. After the expiry of three years, the respondent wanted the appellant to vacate the premises. As the appellant did not vacate, the respondent issued a notice on 28.8.1968 demanding possession for which he sent a reply with false and frivolous allegations. In the year 1969, the respondent filed O.S.No.218 of 1969 for recovery of land. The appellant also filed O.S.No. 75 of 1970 as a counter blast for getting a fresh lease document from the respondent. On 14.12.1970, O.S.No. 218 of 1969 was compromised and O.S.No. 75 of 1970 was dismissed as not pressed. The appellant did not vacate the suit property in spite of repeated demands by the respondent, therefore, the respondent filed a fresh Suit i.e. O.S.No. 76 of 1977 for delivery of possession. On 27.7.1978, O.S. No.76 of 1977 was decreed in favour of the respondent while O.P. No. 4 of 1977 filed by the appellant for purchase of the land by her was erroneously dismissed and an order of eviction was passed against the appellant by the Court of District Munsif, Palani. The Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 gives the option of purchasing the site from the landlord by the tenant in case a suit for eviction is filed by the landlord where the tenant is the owner of the superstructure standing thereon and if the tenant is not interested in buying the site then the landlord can buy the superstructure or ask the tenant to remove the superstructure and seek delivery of possession. The said Act was extended to the town of Palani in Tamil Nadu only in 1975, therefore, the option of buying the site from the respondent became available to the appellant as the owner of the superstructure. The appellant filed an application O.P. No. 4 of 1977 in Suit No. 76 of 1977 for purchase of land by him which was dismissed. Against the said order, the appellant filed A.S.No. 121 of 1978 and another A.A.O. No. 94 of 1978 against the order in O.P. No. 4 of 1977. The appellate Court allowed the appeals of the appellant directing the respondent to sell the land to the appellant for an amount of Rs.65,092.50. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed S.A.No. 2149 of 1981 and C.R.P. No. 2204 of 1980 against the order allowing the petition of the appellant for purchase of the suit property. The second appeal and the revision petition filed by the respondent were dismissed by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Madras. Against that order, the respondent filed S.L.P.(c) Nos. 5029 and 5030 of 1984 before this Court which were dismissed. After the stay order operating from 1980 to 1985 continuously ceased to operate, the appellant deposited the full site value. With the dismissal of the S.L.Ps by this Court and the deposit of the full site value by the appellant, the same became final. In the year 1985, the appellant filed an execution petition being E.P. No. 257 of 1985 for execution of the sale deed of the land in his favour by the respondent. On the other hand, the respondent filed an execution petition being E.P. No. 79 of 1983 for executing the compromise decree in O.S.No.218 of 1969. Both the petitions were taken up together for disposal. The Executing Court allowed E.P. No. 257 of 1985 filed by the appellant for execution of the sale deed and dismissed E.P. No. 79 of 1983 filed by the respondent. Dissatisfied therewith, the respondent filed C.R.P. No. 1445 of 1988 against the order in E.P. No. 79 of 1983 and A.A.O. No. 767 of 1989 against the order in E.P. No. 257 of 1985. Both the petitions were heard together and the same were dismissed by the High Court upholding the directions of the Execution Court to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant. On 28.10.1996, the sale deed in favour of the appellant was executed by the Court of District Munsif, Palani. The sale deed was registered as Document No. 1908 of 1996 in the Registrar's office. Against the order in C.R.P. No. 1445 of 1988 and A.A. O. No. 767 of 1989, the respondent filed S.L.P.(C) Nos. 22925 and 22926 of 1996 before this Court which were dismissed. After every thing became final with the execution and registration of the sale deed in favour of the appellant and the dismissal of the S.L.Ps by this Court, the respondent filed review applications being Review Application Nos. 8 & 9 of 1997 in the High Court against the order dated 26.7.1997 passed by the High Court on the same grounds as were in S.L.Ps. and the same were dismissed on the ground that they were not maintainable after the dismissal of the S.L.Ps by this Court. On 7.2.1997, the appellant filed an application E.A.No. 820 of 1996 for return of the duly registered sale deed and the same was allowed. The respondent was not a party to the said E.A. and he did not make any effort to implead himself. Against the said order, the Registrar who was a party filed C.R.P. No. 1819 of 1997. In the said C.R.P., the respondent filed an application being C.M.P. No. 3005 of 1998 to implead himself which was dismissed by the High Court. The C.R.P. filed by the Registrar was dismissed and the Registrar returned the sale deed to the executing Court. Against the order dated 16.12.1998 in the R.A.Nos. 8 & 9 of 1997, the respondent filed S.L.P.(c) Nos. 6097 & 6098 of 1999 before this Court. On 2.2.2001, this Court passed an order of remand of the review applications in S.L.P.(c) Nos. 6097-6098 of 1999 because of the decision of this Court in Kunhyammed vs. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359 holding that the summary dismissal of a special leave petition does not bar a review petition permissible under the law. The respondent filed an application in the review applications for producing additional documents which was allowed by a learned single Judge of the High Court. As a result of the order of the High Court, the proceedings for return of the registered sale deed to the appellant was dismissed by the executing Court. Aggrieved by the said order, these appeals have been preferred by the appellant.
(3.) Heard Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.;