IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 31/03/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR
Letters Patent Appeal No.100 of 1991
1 P.S.Sathappan (died)
2. S.Lakshmi @ Jayalakshmi
3.Minor S.S.Seetha
4.Minor S.Jegan somasundaram
(Minors represented by their mother
and guardian, the second appellant)
(Appellants 2 to 4 brought on record
as per the directions of this Court, on
the basis of the memo dated 2.2.2006) ... Appellants
-Vs-
1.Andhra Bank Ltd.,
Oppanakara Street,
Coimbatore.
2.M/s Kaleeswarar Mills Limited,
Kattur, Coimbatore.
3.P.S.S.SomasundaramChettiar,
'Soma Vilas' Trichy Road,
Coimbatore-18.
4.M.Shanmugam ... Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters patent
against the order dated 08.10.1990 made in C.M.A.No.771 of 1985.
!For Appellant : Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, S.C., for
Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari
^For Respondents1 to 3 : No appearance
For 4th respondent : Mr.T.R.Rajaraman
:JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The above Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order of
the learned single Judge dated 8.10.1990 made in C.M.A.No.771 of 198 5.
2. Before going into the merits, it is brought to our notice that
when the matter was pending before the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal
Nos.689 of 1998, the first appellant viz., P.S.Sathappan died and in his
place, his wife (1) S.Lakshmi @ Jayalakshmi , (2) minor S.S.Seetha, (3)Minor
S.Jegan Somasundaram were impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased
first appellant. They also filed a memo to that effect before this Court.
The said memo is hereby recorded and the following persons viz.,1) S.Lakshmi @
Jayalakshmi, (2) minor S.S.Seetha, (3)Minor S.Jegan Somasundaram are brought
on record as appellants 2 to 4 in this appeal.
3. Coming to the order which is under challenge, it is seen that
before the learned Judge, the appellant has raised several contentions
questioning that the Court auction sale was vitiated. The learned Judge,
considered all the objections. It is further seen that inasmuch as the first
appellant (since died) filed a suit for partition in C. S.No.188 of 1972, the
learned Judge has directed him to work out his right therein. It is also
brought to our notice that the said suit has been disposed of and pursuant to
the follow up action, the property in question was purchased by the first
respondent Andhra Bank. Inasmuch as the learned Judge has considered the
contentions raised and negatived the same by giving adequate reasons, in the
absence of any other material, the said conclusion cannot be interfered with.
No serious argument was advanced with regard to the findings of the learned
Judge. On going through the materials, we are in agreement with the said
conclusion and we do not find any valid ground for interference. Accordingly,
the Letters Patent Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
raa