High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-01-15Dismissed

Gopakumar P.K. and Swapna v. Arjun Amaravathi Chits (P) Ltd. and V.P. Anilkumar

Case / Petition Number:OP(C) Nos.1903 & 1892 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Jayachandran
Judgment Date: 2024-01-15
Court Decision / Holding: O.P.(C.) Nos.1903 & 1892 of 2023 dismissed; petitions challenging the sale under Order 21, Rule 90 not found meritorious in light of lack of substantial irregularities or higher market value justification. The sale remains with the decree holder.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

GOPAKUMAR P.K.
SWAPNA

Respondents

M/S ARJUN AMARAVATHI CHITS(P) LTD.
V.P. ANILKUMAR

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.K. SREEVALS AKRISHNAN
• K.R.PRATHISH
• JOEL CHALAMANA
• S.UNNIKRISHNAN (NELLAD)
• KRISHNA DAS

Counsels for Respondents

• GEORGE CHERIAN
• P.T.MOHANKUMAR(K/78/1983)
• RAJESH CHERIAN KARIPPAPARAMBIL(K/000301/1995)
• RAM MOHAN(K/2812/2023)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, in a common judgment by Justice C. Jayachandran, adjudicates OP(C) Nos. 1903 and 1892 of 2023, challenging orders in execution proceedings before the Munsiff Court, North Paravur. The petitioners, judgment debtors 2 and 3, contend that the sale of their property under Order 21, Rule 66 was improperly valued. They argue the property would fetch far more than the court-ordered price: Rs 4,00,000 per cent, making 11 cents worth about Rs 44,00,000, while the Munsiff Court’s sale was fixed at Rs 10,00,000. They highlight the April 2023 revision of fair value notifications and submit that a stamp duty–related valuation should not govern the execution process fixed earlier. The respondents counter that a later fair value notification cannot affect the market value for a pre-existing Order 21 proceeding and that the sale has already been effected; only the sale’s confirmation is stayed. They also emphasize that irregularities in publishing or conducting sales can be challenged under Order 21, Rule 90, citing Sundararajan v. Rajendran to justify the remedy already pursued. After considering submissions, the court finds no basis to accept the higher value or to reopen the sale. The petitions are dismissed, and the sale stands with the decree holder.

Provisions of Law Cited

Order 21, Rule 66Order 21, Rule 90

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Irregularities in sale can be challenged under Order 21, Rule 90 (Sundararajan v. Rajendran doctrine)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the sale price fixed by the executing court did not reflect the true market value. They contended that the property would command about Rs 4,00,000 per cent, making 11 cents worth roughly Rs 44,00,000, far above the Rs 10,00,000 sale price. They stressed that a 2023 government fair value notification indicated a higher value and urged this court to consider it in the ongoing execution proceedings. They asserted that although irregularities may be challenged under Order 21, Rule 90, the basis of the challenge lies in valuation and process, and the remedy under Rule 90 should be available. Respondents countered that stamp-duty related valuations cannot override earlier orders and that the sale has already occurred; only its confirmation is stayed. They maintained that the relief sought would undermine finality and emphasized that irregularities can be challenged, but the petitioners already availed Rule 90 relief.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the later fair value notification cannot alter the market value fixed in the earlier Order 21 proceedings. They asserted the sale has already taken place and what remains is the stay on confirmation of sale, which cannot be undone by relying on a revised valuation. They argued that the petitioners have already invoked Order 21, Rule 90 to challenge irregularities, following the Sundararajan v. Rajendran doctrine, and the court should uphold the original sale. The respondents contended that stamp duty valuations do not govern execution proceedings and that the remedy under Rule 90 is not to reopen the sale but to challenge procedural irregularities only if any are proven. The submissions thus emphasize finality of sale and non-viability of revisiting the valuation at this stage.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sundararajan v. Rajendran	AIR (1981) SCC 693	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that irregularities/fraud in sale proceedings can be challenged under Order 21, Rule 90.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Gopakumar P.K. and Swapna v. Arjun Amaravathi Chits (P) Ltd. and V.P. Anilkumar and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN` ``` MONDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 25TH POUSHA, 1945 ``` ## `OP(C) NO. 1903 OF 2023` ``` (CHALLENGING THE ORDER PASSED IN E.A. NO.258/2023 IN EP 170/2016 IN ARC NO.604/2015 DATED 04.07.2023 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR ``` ## `PETITIONERS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS 2 & 3:` ``` 1GOPAKUMAR P.K. AGED 52 YEARS S/O KUTTAPPAN, POOVANTH HOUSE, THATTARATHIL, MURIYAMANGALAM KARA, MAMALA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682305 2SWAPNA AGED 45 YEARS W/O GOPAKUMAR, POOVANTH HOUSE, THATTARATHIL, MURIYAMANGALAM KARA, MAMALA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682305 BY ADVS. P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN K.R.PRATHISH JOEL CHALAMANA S.UNNIKRISHNAN (NELLAD) KRISHNA DAS ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR 1:` ``` 1M/S ARJUN AMARAVATHI CHITS(P) LTD.NO.30 LTD.NO.30,KUTCHERY ROAD,MYLAPORE,CHENNAI-600004 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, P. MADHAVAN KUTTY S/O T. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, AGED 50 YEARS , PIN - 682306 2V.P. ANILKUMAR S/O V.V. PARAMESHARAN VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, ELOOR P.O. THRIPUNITHURA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682306 BY ADVS. GEORGE CHERIAN P.T.MOHANKUMAR(K/78/1983) RAJESH CHERIAN KARIPPAPARAMBIL(K/000301/1995) RAM MOHAN(K/2812/2023) ``` ``` THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.01.2024, ALONG ``` ``` WITH OP(C).1892/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` O.P.(C.) No.1903 & 1892 of 2023 ``` 2 ## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 25TH POUSHA, 1945 ``` ## `OP(C) NO. 1892 OF 2023` ``` (CHALLENGING THE ORDER PASSED IN E.A. NO.260/2023 IN EP 171/2016 IN ``` ``` ARC NO.603/2015 DATED 04.07.2023 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR ``` ## `PETITIONERS / JUDGMENT DEBTORS 2 & 3:` ``` 1GOPAKUMAR P.K. AGED 52 YEARS S/O KUTTAPPAN, POOVANTH HOUSE, THATTARATHIL, MURIYAMANGALAM KARA, MAMALA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682305 2SWAPNA AGED 45 YEARS W/O GOPAKUMAR, POOVANTH HOUSE, THATTARATHIL, MURIYAMANGALAM KARA, MAMALA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682305 BY ADVS. P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN K.R.PRATHISH JOEL CHALAMANA KRISHNA DAS ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR 1:` ``` 1ARJUN AMARAVATHI CHITS (P) LTD.NO.30, KUTCHERY ROAD, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, P. MADHAVAN KUTTY, S/O T. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, AGED 50 YEARS., PIN - 600004 2V.P. ANILKUMAR AGED 65 YEARS S/O V.V. PARAMESHARAN, VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, ELOOR P.O.,THRIPUNITHURA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682306 BY ADVS. GEORGE CHERIAN P.T.MOHANKUMAR(K/78/1983) RAJESH CHERIAN KARIPPAPARAMBIL(K/000301/1995) RAM MOHAN(K/2812/2023) ``` ``` THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.01.2024, ``` ``` ALONG WITH OP(C).1903/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` O.P.(C.) No.1903 & 1892 of 2023 ``` 3 **C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. -----------------------------------------O.P.(C.) Nos.1903 & 1892 of 2023 -----------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of January, 2024** ## **COMMON JUDGMENT** The petitioners are judgment debtors 2 and 3 in E.P. Nos.170/2016 and 171/2016, the first of which arising from A.R.C. No.604/2015 and the second, from A.R.C. No.603/2015. Both Execution Petitions are pending before the Munsiff’s Court, North Paravur. 2. In both these Original Petitions, Ext.P5 order is under challenge, which rejected the petitioners’ objection, specific to the effect that the entire property is not required for satisfying the decree debt, inasmuch as the property would fetch a price of Rs.4,00,000/- per cent, as against Rs.10,00,000/- reckoned for the entire extent of 11 cents. ``` O.P.(C.) No.1903 & 1892 of 2023 ``` 4 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the property in question would fetch a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- per cent and 11 cents of property would fetch Rs.44,00,000/-, whereas the property has been ordered to be sold for Rs.10,00,00/-. It was also pointed out that in April, 2023, the fair value notification has been revised by the Government, as per which, the property would fetch Rs.4,00,000/- per cent. 5. Per contra, this application was seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, by pointing out that a subsequent fair value notification by the Government for the purpose of stamp duty cannot govern the proceedings under Order 21, Rule 66 made much earlier. It was also pointed out that the sale has been effected and the property has been purchased by the decree holder. All what is stayed is the confirmation of the sale. Learned counsel also pointed out that the ``` O.P.(C.) No.1903 & 1892 of 2023 ``` 5 petitioners herein have preferred petitions under Order 21, Rule 90 challenging the sale and going by the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sundararajan v. Rajendran [AIR (1981) SCC 693], all irregularities and fraud committed in the process of conducting or publishing the sale can be challenged under Order 21, Rule 90, wherefore the instant objections can also be considered therein. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this court finds little merit in both the Original Petitions preferred. Primarily, this Court finds that no material has been placed by the petitioners before the Executing Court to show that the subject property would fetch a vale of Rs.4,00,000/- per cent. A subsequent fair value notification for the purpose of stamp duty, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, cannot be pressed into service to show that the market value of property is much higher than the one fixed by the Executing Court. That apart, ``` O.P.(C.) No.1903 & 1892 of 2023 ``` 6 this Court also finds merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that irregularities at the stage of Order 21, Rule 66 in the matter of publishing or conducting the sale can be challenged under Order 21, Rule 90, which remedy has been already been availed by the petitioners herein. In the circumstances, these Original Petitions fail and the same would stand dismissed. ## **Sd/-** **C. JAYACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** SKP/15-01 ``` O.P.(C.) No.1903 & 1892 of 2023 ``` 7 ## `APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1892/2023` ``` PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION DATED 13- 07-2016 FILED AS E.P.NO.171/2016 IN ARC 603/2015 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT N.PARAVUR IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 07-02-2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS 2 & 3 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P2. EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE ISSUED DATED 20- 06-2023 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P3. ``` - `EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 27-062023 FILED BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT N.PARAVUR AS E.A. NO. 260/2023 IN E.P. 171/2016 IN ARC 603/2015 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P4.` - `EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04-07-2023 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT N.PARAVUR IN E.A. NO. 260/2023 IN E.P. 171/2016 IN ARC 603/2015 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P5.` ``` RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES: ``` ``` ANNEXURE R1(A)TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION, EA NO.348/2023 FOR SETTING ASIDE THE SALE, UNDER ORDER XXL, RULE 90 ``` ``` ANNEXURE R1(B)TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACTS OF RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FROM THE E-COURTS WEBSITE IN E.P. NO 171/2016 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT,NORTH PARAVUR ``` ``` O.P.(C.) No.1903 & 1892 of 2023 ``` 8 ## `APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1903/2023` |`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:`|| |---|---| |`EXHIBIT P1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION DATED 13-`| ||`07-2016 FILED AS E.P.NO.170/2016 IN ARC`| ||`604/2015 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT N.PARAVUR IS`| ||`PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P1`| |`EXHIBIT P2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 21-11-2022`| ||`FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS 2 & 3`| ||`IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P2.`| |`EXHIBIT P3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE ISSUED DATED 21-`| ||`06-2023 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS`| ||`EXHIBIT P3.`| |`EXHIBIT P4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 27-06-`| ||`2023 FILED BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT N.PARAVUR AS`| ||`E.A. NO. 258/2023 IN E.P. 170/2016 IN ARC`| ||`604/2015 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS`| ||`EXHIBIT P4.`| |`EXHIBIT P5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED PASSED BY THE`| ||`MUNSIFF COURT N.PARAVUR IN E.A. NO. 258/2023 IN`| ||`E.P. 170/2016 IN ARC 604/2015 IS PRODUCED`| ||`HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P5.`| |`RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL`|| ## `TRUE COPY` ``` P.A. TO JUDGE ```