LexT. VIJENDRADAS AND ANR. versus M. SUBRAMANIAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
. T. VIJENDRADAS AND ANR.
v.
M. SUBRAMANIAN AND ORS.
OCTOBER 9, 2007
[S.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.]
Coqe of Civil Procedure, 1908~.34 & 021,r.92,-fendor:Jiable ...
to pay property tax arrears .to ¥1!;nicipa/ity-fioldproperty to
C Respondent without intimating Municipality-Name o.f Respondent not
recorded in mutation register-Municipality filed suit for recovery of
taxes-Vendor did not intimate factum o.f sale to Court-Municipality
obtained decree-Propaty put in auction which was purchased by wife
of vendor-Suit for declaration and possession filed by vendee-
D respondent alleging commission of.fraud by vendor-Meanwhile wife
of vendor sold property to third party who ultimately sold it to
Appellants-Suit filed by vendee decreed-Challenge to decree by
Appellants on ground that vendee did not implead Municipality inspite
of it being a necessary party-Tenability of-Held: Not tenable-
E Municipality was not a necessary party under Order 21, r.92-
Appellants purchased property pendente lite inspite of notice of sale
made by vendor in favour of Respondent-They are also guilty of
suppressio veri-Respondent was victim of .fraud-Directions issued
by Supreme Court in exercise of its equity jurisdiction under Art. 142
F of the Constitution-Appellants otherwise entitled to file suit against
wife of vendor-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 142-Equity.
Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920--Ss.85 and 88-
Liability to pay property tax-Held: Is on vendor upto date of sale-
Liability of vendee arises only from date of sale-However if no
G mutation has taken place in name of vendee, liability of vendor shall
continue-Transfer of Property Act, 1882--S. 55(J)(g).
Decree-Decree obtained by practicing fraud on Court-Held:
Is nullity-Once it is held that by reason of commission of.fraud, decree
H
. 880
~{
'
--f
T. VIJENDRADAS v. M. SUBRAMANIAN
881
is void then it is inequitable to·confer benefit on party who is beneficiary A
thereunder.
'RV' owned property situated within the Coimbatore Municipal
Corporation (the Municipality). He sold the property to 'S', the
mother of Respondent Nos.1 and 2, but did not intimate the factum
of sale to the Municipality. 'RV' was liable to pay certain property B
tax arrears in terms of the Tamil Na du District Municipalities Act,
1920. \Vith a view to enforce statutory charge as laid down in the
1920 Act, the Municipality filed suit against 'RV'. 'RV' did not inform
the Court that he had already sold the property in favour of 'S'. The
suit was decreed. In execution proceedings, the property was put in C
auction. The wife of 'RV' purchased the property. 'S' filed suit for
declaration and possession alleging commission of fraud by 'RV'.
Meanwhile wife of 'RV' sold the property to a third party who
ultimately sold it to Appellants. The suit filed by 'S' was decreed.
The First and Second appeal thereagainst were dismissed.
D
In appeal to this Court, it was contended by the Appellants that
in view of the mandatory provisions contained in sub-rule (4) of Rule
92 of Order XXI CPC, Municipality was a necessary party in the
suit filed by 'S' and in its absence the judgment passed by the Courts E
below are nullities.
Disposing the appeals, the Court
>\
HELD:l.1. Section SS(l)(g) of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 envisages payment of taxes in respect of the property by the F
vendor up to the date of sale. The liability of the vendee to pay the
property tax arises only from the date of sale. However, Sections
85 and 88 of the Tamil Na du District Municipalities Act provide that
in the event, the factum of sale is not communicated, the liability of
the vendor shall continue. Consequently a statutory charge is created G
--r-
on the property. A person having an interest in the property,
therefore, might have a right ofredemption. A suit for realisation of
the dues in respect of a property in respect whereof a statutory
charge is created, a suit could also be filed by the Municipality, apart
from taking recourse to the procedure provided for realisation of the H
.\~
882
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 10 S.C.R. \
A said dues as land revenue. [Para 12] [892-G-H; 893-A-B]
1.2. The decree obtained by the Municipality had been passed
under Order XXXIV CPC. A decree passed in terms of Order
XXXIV, Rule 1 CPC is somewhat different from a decree passed in
an ordinary money suit. lfin terms of the provisions of the statute,
B plaintiffs-rExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.