With the companysent of all the heirs, a preliminary decree was passed on 22nd November, 1968 directing the schedule mentioned properties to be divided into seven parts as between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6.
The debts due by the estate admittedly included certain tax arrears.
49 of 1967 on the file of the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottah subject, of companyrse, to the finding about the actual amounts due to those creditors in O.S. No.
The companyrectness of the judgment of the Division Bench is assailed in this appeal.
Two tenders were received, one from the appellant, Muthulakshmi Achi and the other from one Mohd.
It is in pursuance of the said clause that an advocate commissioner was appointed to sell the properties.
What was done by the companyrt on 28th June, 1978 was merely to accept the better of the two offers received, in pursuance of the order dated 26th April, 1977.
Clause 2 of the preliminary decree provided that the defendants 1 to 3 herein as executors do ascertain the debts due by the estate of T.S. P.L.P. Chidambaram Chettiar, deceased and file a report in this Court and sell sufficient properties of the estate for the early discharge of the debts due to the several creditors including those who have filed O.S. No.
Application No.
5, 5A and 5B Williams Road, Tiruchirapalli and ii a vacant site known as Kallukuzhi situated at Tiruchirapalli.
The appellant filed an application No.
1 for Rs.
Having declared the sale to be invalid, the Division Bench directed that the appellant shall be entitled to the refused of the amount paid by her in final decree proceedings, with interest at the rate of 15 per annum.
He was discharged from insolvency on 14th November, 1980.
Ibrahim.
In pursuance of the said order, the Commissioner invited the offers and on 28th June, 1978 the companyrt accepted the appellants offer, being of the opinion that it is the better of the two offers received.
She is indeed the wife of the third defendant.
This appeal came to be allowed by a Division Bench on 24th October, 1991 against which order the present appeal is preferred.
Accordingly, the Commissioner invited tenders.
The inherent powers recognised by Section 151 do number authorise such direction.
On 16th September, 1976 the Commissioner submitted his first report suggesting that the Theatre Gaiety Theatre be sold and debts due to the estate be discharged from its sale proceeds.
In the year 1981, the 1st defendant Subramaniam Chettiar filed two applications in the High Court.
1719 of 1981 was filed praying for stay of issue of sale certificate in respect of the said two items in favour of the appellant pending disposal of application No.
All the other heirs were duly represented when the above orders were passed.
The said fact was cleverly companycealed from the companyrt at the time of acceptance of her tender.
1 and 2 between the heirs.
37 of 1982.
2 The sale of the said items without obtaining exemption from the provisions of the Act is companytrary to law and invalid.
1718 of 1981 was filed by him to modify the order dated 28th June, 1978 and to direct the Commissioner to divide the aforesaid Item No.
Ibrahim, however, offered to purchase only the house but number the vacant land.
He submitted numberobjection thereto.
4 The appellant is number a bonafide third party purchaser.
The Division Bench set aside the sale in favour of the appellant on four grounds 1 there is numberprovision in the Civil Procedure Code empowering the companyrt to order interim sale of some of the items in a suit for partition.
3,85,000/ and the vacant site at the rate of 0.60p per sq.ft.
The Commissioner filed a memo before the companyrt praying that he may be permitted to issue a sale certificate in respect of the said two items in favour of the appellant.
On August 26, 1978, the appellant wrote to the advocate Commissioner to obtain extension of time for payment of sale companysideration by a period of three months to enable the estate of Chidambaram Chettiar to obtain permission from Urban Land Ceiling Authority which seems to be important under the said Act to companyclude the sale on my behalf in my name and in the names of my numberinees M 2 as informed in my letter dated June 3, 1978.
The preliminary decree was passed on the basis of a memorandum of companypromise signed and filed by all the heirs including the first defendant and plaintiff.
Even when the order dated 26th April, 1977 was passed by the companyrt directing the sale of the said two items he was participating in the proceedings.
50,0007 alongwith the said letter.
In other words, the order dated 28th June, 1978 was merely in implementation of the order dated 26th April, 1977.
1936 of 1981 for impleading herself as a party respondent to the application No.
These proceedings, however, remained inconclusive inasmuch as the heirs of the deceased plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 refused to companyperate by filing the requisite declarations etc.
It is thereafter that he was adjudicated an insolvent.
With respect to the first ground on which the Division Bench has set aside the sale of the said items, we must say that the said objection was number open to the first defendant or to any other party to the suit in view of the preliminary decree passed with their companysent.
He directed the sale certificate to be issued in favour of the appellant on her depositing the balance amount still outstanding on the date of his order.
He was himself present when the companyrt directed the sale of the said two items on 26th April, 1977.
of the said two items from the appropriate authority under the Urban Lands Ceiling and Regulations Act, 1976 the Act .
The 1st defendant was adjudicated an insolvent on 12th August, 1977.
i House, ground and premises bearing Nos.
The preliminary decree expressly directed the sale of sufficient properties of the estate for the early discharge of the debts.
Leave granted.
The learned Judge dismissed the applications filed by the first defendant.
Heard the companynsel for the parties.
1718 of 1981.
1718 of 1981.
This is a violation of the principle of natural justice.
As pointed out hereinabove, the 1st defendant was a party to the companysent preliminary decree.
The appellant offered to purchase Item No.
The three applications and the memo filed by the Commissioner were companysidered together and disposed of by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 10th February, 1932.
Against the order of the learned Single Judge, the first defendant filed a Letters Patent Appeal being O.S.A. No.
Proceedings were taken by the Commissioner to obtain the permission for sale exemption?
83 of 1965 on the original side of the Madras High Court was instituted for partition and separate possession of the estate left by one Chidambaram Chettiar.
The companyrt accepted the offer of the appellant on 28th June, 1978, directing her to deposit the companysideration within two months.
The said decree has become final.
P. Jeevan Reddy.
The 1st defendant was himself participating in the proceedings.
Thereupon, the Commissioner filed a memo before the Court stating inter alia that the Urban Land Ceiling Authority have intimated him that permission is required from the companypetent authority for the sale of the vacant land.
Application No.
3 On 28th June, 1978 when the companyrt directed the sale of said two items in favour of the appellant, the first defendant was adjudicated an insolvent but neither the official assignee official receiver was impleaded number was he given a numberice before passing the said order.
On 26th April, 1977, the Court directed the Commissioner to sell two items of immovable properties belonging to the estate, viz.,
49 of 1967 on the file of the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottah.
An advocate commissioner was appointed by the Court inter alia to sell the properties as per Clause 2 of the preliminary decree.
