She filed one IA No.582 of 2000 seeking an injunction restraining the second respondent from alienating the schedule properties and this application was granted on 17.2.2000.
Second Respondent herein, namely, Mattaparthi Satyam owned 14 acres of land.
The appellant thereafter paid Rs.2 lakhs on 27.3.1993 and Rs.20,000/ on 16.4.1993 which payments were endorsed on the reverse side of the Agreement by the Second Respondent.
However, by its order dated 16.3.2007, the High Court of Madras dismissed CMA 3254 of 2004 holding that the application was number maintainable.
The following facts will highlight the companytroversy.
However, the Second Respondent failed to execute the registered Sale Deed inspite of several requests and, therefore, the present appellant filed Original Suit No.605 of 1996 before the Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry for specific performance of the Sale Agreement which suit was later on transferred to Sub Court, Yanam and was renumbered as Original Suit No.31 of 2000.
The said Execution Application was filed under Order XXI Rule 58 whereby the appellant sought to make a prayer for raising the attachment on the suit property or in the alternative to declare the sale being subject to the claim in Original Suit being OS No.31 of 2000.
This application was numbered as Execution Application No.9 of 2003.
The first respondent thereafter filed E.P. No.15 of 2002 before Sub Court, Yanam for execution of the decree dated 22.1.2002 passed in OS No.63 of 2000.
Thereafter this suit was decreed on 22.1.2002.
CIVIL APPEAL NO 2001 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP Civil No.9102 of 2007 S. SIRPURKAR, J. Leave granted.
Execution Petition No.10 of 2002 came to be filed on the basis of the decree passed in OS No.63 of 2000 for recovery of arrears of maintenance payable by the second respondent to the first respondent.
However, even this application was dismissed on merits on 27.2.2003.
The said application came to be dismissed by the Subordinate Court.
This petition was also transferred to the Sub Court Yanam and was re numbered as OS No.63 of 2000.
In the year 2000, the first respondent, who is numbere else but the wife of the second respondent filed a maintenance case being OP No.34 of 2000 before the Family Court, Yanam.
The second respondent did number pay the arrears of maintenance but instead filed IA No.4 of 2003 in OS No.63 of 2000 before Sub Court, Yanam to set aside the above decree dated 22.1.2002.
The appellant herein filed an appeal against the said order of dismissal dated 9.9.2004.
As against this a companytention was raised by the learned companynsel Shri Vishwanathan that the wife, respondent number1 herein, had filed OP No.34 of 2000 in Family Court in her individual right as a wife.
A public auction was ordered in that Execution Application and the same was companyducted on 2.7.2003 in which public auction the third respondent herein purchased the said suit property.
He put up the said land for sale and the present appellant having offered highest market value of Rs.29,000/ per acre, executed an Agreement of Sale for 14 acres in favour of the appellant on 20th March, 1993 after having received a sum of Rs.1 lakh from the appellant.
The present appellant, therefore, filed a petition in E.P. No.15 of 2002 in OS No.63 of 2000 under the provisions of Order XXI Rule 58, raising objections to the said auction and to declare that the sale is subject to the appellants claim in OS No.31 of 2000 which was pending on the file of Sub Court, Yanam.
The dismissal judgment of the Madras High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the appellant herein, is in challenge before us.
This appeal was filed against the order dated 9.9.2004 passed by Subordinate Judge, Yanam in Execution Application No.9 of 2003 in Execution Petition No.15 of 2002.
