Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is preferred by the auction purchaser in E.P.No.50 of 2000 in O.S.No.234 of 1998 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil. O.S.No.234 of 1998 was a suit for recovery of money filed by the Canara Bank (Kottar Branch) at Chetty Street, Nagercoil, as against the defendant one S.Nagarajan for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,52,682.89 with future interest calculated at a rate of 19.85% as per annum. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 04:21:42 pm )

4.The application in E.A.No.168 of 2012 was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 21.08.2013, against which a civil miscellaneous appeal in C.M.A.No.17 of 2013 was filed by the claimant obstructor before the learned District Judge's Court Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. The learned District Judge was pleased to set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court in E.A.No.168 of 2012, thereby allowing C.M.A.No. 17 of 2013 filed by the claimant obstructor by judgment and decree dated 04.09.2015. Challenging the same, the auction purchaser is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 04:21:42 pm ) before this Court, by way of this C.M.S.A.. In the meanwhile, the auction purchaser Ashokamithran also filed another Execution Application in E.A.No.269 of 2011 in E.P.No.50 of 2000 seeking recovery of possession which was also dismissed by the learned Trial Court, in view of the judgement and decree passed in C.M.A.No.17 of 2013 dated 04.09.2015 passed by the learned District Judge Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, in favour of the claimant obstructor.

20.The learned senior counsel pointed out that, even as per the bailiff's valuation, the property value which was claimed in the attachment petition was Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) and the valuation as per the senior bailiff was Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as on 25.06.1999. Further, the learned senior counsel pointed out that even in the communication sent from the Nazir section of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Nagercoil, to the Sub-Registry in Nagercoil, the survey numbers mentioned has been carefully corrected from T.S.No.Q7/72 to R.S.No.Q7/76 and T.S.No.Q7/75 to R.S.No.Q7/78 of Vadiveeswaram village. The learned senior counsel further pointed out that, the affidavit filed by the bank manager in the E.P. petition in E.P.No.50 of 2000 which is marked as exhibit P-9, it is falsely affirmed that the detailed village, survey number and area of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 04:21:42 pm ) property mentioned in the E.P. schedule of property is correct.

24.The learned senior counsel appearing for the claimant obstructor pointed out the argument of the learned senior counsel https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 04:21:42 pm ) appearing for the auction purchaser that the property was brought in for proclamation at least for 10 times and thereafter drew my attention to the proclamation schedule Jabida marked as exhibit P-13 dated 09.12.2002 in which the survey number has been given as T.S.NO. Q7/72 and Q7/75 and the area as Q7/72 3/4 cents, Q7/75 3 cents, total 3 3/4 cents. From these documents more particularly exhibit P-13, the attachment schedule filed by the plaintiff bank in I.A.No.384 of 1998 dated 05.04.1999, the Encumbrance Certificate marked as (Exhibit P-11), the third party affidavit of Neela Gandapullai dated 20.10.1998, exhibit P8, that is, the letter of the Nazir section of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Nagercoil, to the Sub Registrar, Nagercoil, and the schedule of property in the attachment petition dated 20.10.1998 would reveal that though correction has been carried out in the schedule of property of the attachment petition dated 20.10.1998, exhibit P-11 would make it clear that the correction could not have been done till 12.10.2011, since the exhibit P-11 encumbrance certificate reflects the survey number as T.S.Nos. Q7/72 and Q7/75.