9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (10) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... state, namely, house, ground and premises bearing Nos. 5, 5-A and 5-B, Williams Road, Tiruchirapalli, and a vacant site, known as Kallukuzhi, Tiruchirapalli. Pursuant to the said orders, the Commissioner invited tenders for the purchase of the said items of the properties. He filed a report in the court stating that he received two tenders, one from Muthulakshmi Achi and the other from one Mohammed Ibrahim. Muthulakshmi Achi offered Rs. 3,85,000 for the house and 60 paise per square foot for the vacant site. The said Mohammed Ibrahim offered Rs. 3,90,000 for the house alone and he was not willing to purchase the vacant site on account of certain technical difficulties arising out of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (for short " the Act"). Accepting the offer of the said Muthulakshmi Achi on June 28, 1978, the Advocate-Commissioner was directed to sell the house and the vacant site to her, granting her two months' time to deposit the sale price. The Commissioner also took steps to get clearance from the Urban Land Ceiling authorities ; but the efforts so taken ended in dismal failure. Meanwhile, one of the heirs, PL. CT. SP. Subramanian; Chettiar (f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpleading the official assignee, as a party, is bad in law. Learned counsel appearing for Muthulakshmi Achi (respondent No. 8) would repel the submissions as raised above and state as follows: The valid and conclusive acceptance of the offer of Muthulakshmi Achi to purchase the house and the vacant site cannot at all be later rescinded and Muthulakshmi Achi is even now prepared to deposit in court the entirety of the amount of Rs. 4,50,000 and take the sale certificate, without even insisting on the clearance certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling authorities. Learned single judge had given anxious consideration to the rival submissions as above and ultimately held that there was no warrant for any modification of the order dated June 28, 1978, and consequently dismissed Application No. 1718 of 1981, giving rise to the present action by the first defendant. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, leaving aside the tenability or otherwise of the reasons adverted to by the learned single judge for the dismissal of the application, would, however, submit that the impugned order of dismissal, culminating in the issuance of the sale certificate in favour of Muthulakshm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther counsel, in the light of the provisions contained in the Code and the Act. There are certain specific provisions in the Code as respects the sale of movable and immovable properties. Order 39, rule 6, invests the power to the court to order interim sale of movable property and the said rule reads as follows : " The court may, on the application of any party to a suit, order the sale, by any person named in such order, and in such manner and on such terms as it thinks fit, of any movable property, being the subject-matter of such suit, or attached before judgment in such suit, which is subject to speedy and natural decay, or which for any other just and sufficient cause it may be desirable to have sold at once. " There are also other provisions regarding the sale of movable property found traceable to Order 21, rules 74 to 81, and the details of those provisions need not at all be elaborated here for the purpose of the instant case. The sale of immovable property, in execution of the decree is legally permissible and to this effect, there is a provision under Order 21, rule 82, which prescribes : " Sales of immovable property in execution of decrees may be ordered by an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered the question whether the court has inherent jurisdiction, apart from the Partition Act, to pass an order as it thinks just and convenient. This court, after placing implicit reliance on the Division Bench decision of this court in O. S. A. No. 108 of 1966, which was affirmed by the apex of the judicial Administration of the country in R. Ramamurthi Aiyar v. Raja V. Rajeswararao, AIR 1973 SC 643 , said thus (see [1976] 2 MLJ 373, 377) : " It is clear from the discussion and the decision rendered in O. S.A. No. 108 of 1966 that the court will not have inherent powers, apart from the Partition Act, to pass orders in respect of a partition suit. I am in complete agreement with the arguments advanced by the petitioner's counsel to the effect that O. S. A. No. 108 of 1966 is the authority for the proposition that the court will not have any inherent powers, apart from the Partition Act, in respect of partition suits. Thus, it is clear the court below has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law. The lower court ought to have decided the case as per the provisions of section 2 of the Partition Act and should not have ordered auction of the suit property in between the shar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and's name and what she would do in a queer way is that she chooses to identify herself as the daughter of " so and so " and despite such assiduous attempts at concealment, her real status as the wife of the third defendant emerged to the surface, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The first defendant would file objections to the memo filed by the Commissioner dated April 7, 1981, for a direction to issue a sale certificate and therein he would make a categorical assertion that she is the wife of the third defendant and this aspect of the matter had not at all been controverted by the said Muthulakshmi Achi and from this, we are not far wrong in coming to the conclusion that she had taken all precautions to conceal her identity as the wife of the third defendant right through, with a sinister purpose and that perhaps was the reason that she chose to describe her status as the daughter of " so and so ", without mentioning her husband's name, who in the circumstances of the case, cannot be anyone other than the third defendant and this sort of a device, we feel, is nothing but a clever attempt made in a dexterous fashion to retain the properties within the family-fold by s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
