P. Subramaniam vs M. Kandasamy

The non-speaking order of the learned District Munsif, Madurai Town has to be set aside. The order reads:

Notice of hearing given. Counter filed. Heard, Ex. A-1 marked. Petition allowed.

The petitioner is admittedly a Court auction purchaser. He purchased the property in execution of a decree obtained by the decree-holder as

against the respondent judgment-debtor. It is not in dispute that the auction sale has not been set aside in a manner known to law. This obviously

means that the respondent has accepted the public sale as also the title of the petitioner to the property which was the subject-matter of the Court

sale. Pursuant to the certificate of title obtained by him, the petitioner filed an application for delivery of possession of the property under Order 21,

Rule 95, Civil P. C. By that time, the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act (10 of 1975) has come to the anvil as a statute.

Taking advantage of the provisions of this Act, the respondent filed an application u/s 4(1) of the Act for stay of all further proceedings so initiated

by the petitioner for delivery of possession. The District Munsif passed the above non-speaking order. Though in the pattern of agrarian legislation,

the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, 1975, also has been brought to the Statute Book, yet, the purpose is to provide

temporary relief to the indebted agriculturists and the bar of suit and applications is with reference to a suit for recovery of a debt or as regards an

application for execution of a decree for payment of money passed in a suit for the recovery of a debt or as regards a suit or application for the

eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of debt. The impact over the bar of suits is continued in section 4 of the Act, which provides

for stay of certain proceedings. It only says that all further proceedings in suits and applications of the nature mentioned in Section 3 in which relief

is claimed against an agriculturist shall stand stayed until the expiry of an order, etc. It cannot, therefore, be contended in the instant case that there

is a suit or application which is enumerated in Section 3 of the Act, nor can it be successfully pleaded that a proceeding in connection with the suit

or application of the nature mentioned in Section 3 is that which has been initiated by the petitioner. The petitioner, on the other hand, based on his

own title paramount, which is not even disputed, has filed an application for recovery of possession of the property purchased by him in a public

sale. This is certainly not a proceeding within the meaning of Section 3 or Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1975. Though, of course, such

proceedings have always been understood in legal parlance as a proceeding in execution, yet, it would be illogical to treat it as an execution

proceeding in execution of a money decree or in a proceeding in which a debt is sought to be recovered by a creditor from a debtor. I am unable,

therefore, to agree with Mr. Ramanathan, who would say that as such proceedings under Order 21, Rule 95 , Civil P. C. are understood to be

proceedings sought for by the petitioner should be stayed. On the other hand, there is a direct authority, Govinda v. National Paper Co., ILR

(1955) Mad 1224, in favour of the above view though no doubt, arising under the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act (5

of 1954). Rajamannar, C. J., spoke for the Bench and observed that in such circumstances the application filed by the auction purchaser for

delivery of possession was not an application for the execution of a decree after a sale had been held in execution of such decree and confirmed

and a sale certificate has been issued to the purchaser. Respectfully adopting this view, the order of the lower Court is set aside, and the civil

revision petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.

Revision allowed.