C.S. MANI (DECEASED) BY LR C.S. DHANAPALAN versus B. CHINNASAMY NAIDU (DECEASED) BY LRS.

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 866 · Decided: 31-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
(2010] 10 S.C.R. 866 
C.S. MANI (DECEASED) BY LR C.S. DHANAPALAN 
v. 
B. CHINNASAMY NAIDU (DECEASED) BY LRS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5798 of 2002) 
AUGUST 31, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) 
Act, 1975: 
s.4 - Execution of money decree against agriculturist -
Attachment of property - Execution application closed in view 
of s.4 of the Act staying the execution against agriculturist -
After moratorium period ended, initiation of execution 
D proceedings by decree-holder - Auction sale of attached 
property - Validity of - Held: Auction sate was valid - There 
was no withdrawal of attachment, nor any qµestion of 'eclipse 
of attachment' during the period of the statutory stay under the 
Act - Attachment in execution already effected, continued 
E and was in effect, during the entire period of stay and on expiry 
of moratorium period, the decree-holder became entitled to 
continue the execution by proceeding with the sale - Sale of 
attached property during subsistence of attachment by the 
judgment-debtor was void - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
F s.51(b), 0.21, rr.54, 55, 57, 58. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
s.51(b), 0.21, rr.54, 55, 57, 58 -
Attachment of 
immovable property effected in execution of a decree -
G Determination/removal of - Legal position discussed. 
0.21, r.57 - Closure of execution application - Held: Is 
not dismissal of execution application. 
The appellant obtained a money decree against the 
H 
866 
C.S. MANI (D) BY LR v. B. CHINNASAMY NAIDU 
867 
(DECEASED) BY LRS. 
judgment-debtor (M). In the execution of the money A 
decree, the properties belonging to 'M' were attached on 
29.12.1974. On 10.1.1975, the Tamil Nadu Indebted 
Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, 1975 came into force, 
by virtue of which all the proceedings in applications for 
execution of decrees in which relief was claimed against 
B 
the agriculturists were stayed until the expiry of one year 
from the date of commencement of the said Act. As 'M' 
was an agriculturist, the execution proceedings in regard 
to the decree obtained by the appellant against her were 
closed on 15.2.1975. The moratorium period of one year c 
under the Debt Relief Act was extended from time to time 
till 14. 7 .1979. After the moratorium period ended, the 
appellant initiated execution proceedings afresh. In the 
said execution proceedings, the attached suit property 
was brought to auction sale on 6.6.1984 and in that D 
auction, the appellant purchased the sale property. 'M' 
filed an applicati<;m under Section 47, CPC to set asid~ 
the sale. The trial court set aside the sale. The first 
appellate court reversed the order of trial court and 
upheld the validity of sale. The High Court upheld the 
E 
same. In the meanwhile, on 17.2.1978, 'M' had sold the 
attached property and the purchaser further sold the 
property and ultimately the a~~.lched (suit) property came 
to the respondent. 
In 1985, the respondent filed a suit for declaration of F 
title over the suit property against the appellant. A decade 
later, the respondent filed an additional document. As per 
the document, the order dated 15.2.1975 was corrected 
twenty years later on 19.7.1995 converting the attachment 
which was to continue without any specific time limit, as 
G 
one to end on the expiry of six months. The said 
correction was by way of an office note and without 
notice to the appellant. The appellant challenged the 
amendment before the High Court. The High Court held 
H 
868 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A that a clerical mistake cannot be converted behind the 
back of parties and remitted the matter to lower court with 
direction to give notice to both the parties in respect of 
the clarification required and the amendment to be made. 
On 18.9.1996, the District Munsif addressed a 
B communication to the counsel of the appellant for making 
correction in the suit register as well as in the certified 
copies. 
The trial court dismissed the suit. The first appellate 
C court upheld the order of trial court. It was concurrently 
found by both the courts that the attachment effected on 
29.12.1974 was not raised/withdrawn/determined and it 
continued till the sale of the property in the court auction 
on 6.6.1984 and, therefore, the sale in favour of appellant 
was valid and the sales effected by 'M' during the 
D subsistence of the attachment were invalid. The High 
Court allowed t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.