Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

14. In the meanwhile, it also transpires quite unfortunately, Ramalingam had played in another wicket and, owing to the debts incurred in the family, the property in Door No.64 was brought to auction by a Creditor, Abirami Enterprises.

15. After following due process, the property was actually auctioned and the appellant herein/Chandrakanthan had purchased the said property in door No.64, Mahathma Gandhi Road, Panruti. It also transpires that quite parallelly, when he had filed an application to take possession, pursuant to the purchase in auction, the legal representatives of the other two brothers namely Gobalasamy and Seetharaman, each filed petitions under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC claiming that they had a one half share or rather the two branches had an 1/4th undivided share in the said property and that the said claim should be adjudicated in manner known to law.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

28. That particular door No.64 was purchased by the present appellant in auction proceedings owing to proceedings initiated by a Creditor, Abirami Enterprises for credits advanced to the plaintiff therein/Ramalingam. But it must be pointed out that under the Claim Petitions in E.A.Nos.868 & 870 of 1981, the right of the appellants herein had been further limited down by an undivided one half share.