KR.GEORGEversusM/S. INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION AND ORS.

                               KR.GEORGE                                               A
                                   v.



-
           MIS. INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION AND ORS.

                                SEPTEMBER 21, 2006

            [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.]                             B


          Decree-&ecution of-Compromise as to payment by third party to
    decree holder in appellate court-Jn lieu thereof sale of property in favour
    of the third party-Property developed by the third party-Despite the               C
    compromise, judgment debtor filing review petition-Dismissal thereof-Jn
    appeal to this Court opportunity given to judgment debtor to deposit the
    decreetal amount-Failure to deposit-Held: Jn view of the facts of the case
    impugned orders do not call for interference as the appeal is not bonafide.

           A recovery suit was decreed against the appellant. In execution thereof,    D
    the property in question was purchased by the decree holder. An application
    by appellant for setting aside the court sale, was dismissed by District Court.
    The order of District Court was challenged in High Court. Appellants-
    judgment debtors in order to raise the decree debt, procured respondent Nos.
    9 and 10. In view of the offer from the respondents and acceptance thereof
    from the decree holder, compromise was entered into, and setting aside the         E
    execution sale, sale of the property in favour of the respondents were directed.
    Sale certificates were issued in their favour. Later, the appellant filed review
    petition on the ground that fraud has been practised in the Court in reaching
    the compromise and set up a third party who expressed his willingness to
    remit the entire sale consideration before High Court for taking assignment        F
    of the property in his favour. The review petition was dismissed by High Court.

          In appeals to this Court on the request of appellant, seeking opportunity
    to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 crores to show his bonafide, this Court in view of
    the third party showing his willingess to take the property before High Court,
    directed him to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 crores within a specified time. The         G
    third party did not comply with the direction.

         Respondent No. 9 filed an affidavit stating therein that consequent to
    the order of this Court, the appellant published an advertisement in
    Newspapers offering sale of the property involved without disclosing his name,
                                          ~I                                           H
     462                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

 A   and thus the advertisement was an abuse of this Court's order and showed
     that offer to purchase the land by the said third party was not bonajide or
     genuine.

           Dismissing the appeals, the Court                                           ...
B          HELD: In view of the events subsequent to the sale of the properties to
     respondent Nos. 9 and 10, they have taken various steps to obtain the plan
     approved and also taken steps for construction of the building, etc., there is
     absolutely no bonajide on the part of the appellant in approaching this Court.
                                                                         (465-D-E(

·C         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4226 of 2006.

          From the Judgment and Final Order dated 12.3.2004 of the High Court
     ofKerala at Emakulam in R.P. No. 359/2003.
                                         WITH
D          C.A. No. 4227/2006.

          K. Sukumaran and N.R. Shonker (for M/s. T.T.K. Deepak & Co.) for the
     Appellant.

          T.L. Vishwanatha Iyer, M.N. Krishnamani, L. Nageshwara Rao, K.V.
E    Mohan, K.R. Nambiar, Fazlin Anam, E.M.S. Anam and Asha Gopalan Nair for
     the Respondents.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           DR. AR LAKSHMANAN, J. Delay condoned.
F
           Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.

           Civil Appeal No. 4226 of2006 (@ S.L.P. (C) No. 3177 of2005) was filed
     against the final order dated 12.3.2004 passed by the High Court of Kerala in
     R.P. No. 359 of2003. Civil Appeal No. 4227 of2006 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.3178 of
G    (2005) was filed against the final order dated 9.4.2004 passed by the High
     Court of Kerala in C.M.A. No.63 of2000.

           We have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. K. Sukumaran, learned
     Senior counsel for the appellant and the arguments of Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, Mr. M.N.
     Krishnamani and Mr. L.N. Rao, learned Senior counsel for the respective
H    respondents. We have cardully perused the orders passed in C.M.A. No.63/
          K.R. GEORGE>-. INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING CORP. [LAKSHMANAN, J.]    463

2000 And also the orders passed in R.P. No. 359/2003 and we have also            A
considered other documents placed on re~ord. A careful perusal of the orders
in C.M.A. and the Review Petition, in our opinion, would reveal that both the
appeals lack merits and one liable to be dismissed for the reasons recorded
in the orders passed in C.M.A. and Review Petition. When the instant matter
came up for hearing before us on the last occasion, we passed the order at
the request of Mr. K. Sukumaran, learned Senior counsel for the appellant and    B
an opportunity was given to deposit a sum of Rs.2 crores to show the
bonafide of the appellant. Accordingly, we passed the following orders on
5.9.2006:

        Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing on either side at some length.    C
       During the pendency of the review petition before the High Court, an
       affidavit was filed by one K.V. Bhaskaran, who is not a party to the
       proceedings, expressing his willingness to remit the entire sale
       consideration before the High Court for taking assignment of the
       property in question in his favour. We, therefore, direct the said K.V.   D
       Bhaskaran to deposit a sum of Rs.2 crores with the Registrar General
       of this Court on or before 12th September, 2006 (upto 5 PM), by way
       of Demand Draft drawn in the name of the Registrar General, Supreme
       Court of India. This direction is issued to show his bonafide. We pass
       rhis direction without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
       other contesting respondents.                                             E
       Respondents No. 9 & I 0 are permitted to file additional affidavit.

       Post the matter on 14th September, 2006 as part-heard."

     When the matter is listed today for further hearing, the learned Senior     F
Counsel for the appellant submitted that even though time was granted to
deposit Rs.2 crores, Mr. K.V. Bhaskaran has not complied with the direction
and has not deposited the sum of Rs.2 crores as ordered by th is Court.

      Our attention has also been drawn to the additional affidavit filed by
the respondent no.9, who is the purchaser of the property involved in the        G
case. By the said affidavit, the serious conduct of the appellant herein by
abusing the process and order of this Court has been ·clearly set out.
Subseq11ent to the order dated 5.9.2006 of this Court, an advertisement was
published in the leading newspapers "Malayala Manorama" and
"Mathrubhoomi" on 9.9.2006, offering to sell the properties involved in the
case. The name of the advertiser is not disclosed in the advertisement.          H
    464                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A Instead two telephone numbers are given, one is of Shri Thomas, Kanichayi
  House. Chalakudy. the brother-in-law of the appellant herein. Apparently, the
  advertisements are at the instance of the appellant Mr. K.R. George and for
  the purpose of raising Rs.2 crores for deposit before this Court. When
  contacted over the telephone by the respondent no.9. the advertiser informed
  that the sale price of Rs.5 crores is negotiable and out of which Rs.2 crores
B are to be deposited in this Court and that this Court will directly convey title
  to the purchaser. A true copy of the said advertisements has also been filed
  here and marked as Annexure ·A' (Colly) along with this affidavit. It is,
  therefore, clear that the offer made by Mr. K.V. Bhaskaran by way of an
  affidavit filed in the Review Petition, is not bonafide or genuine and that he
C has no financial ability to make the deposit. The advertisement at the instance
  of the appellant herein offering to sell 9th respondent's land is an abuse of
  this Court dated 5.9.2006 and is an attempt to defraud intending purchasers.

         Events subsequent to the sale of properties to the respondent No. 9 are
  also placed on record. Consequent to the issue of sale certificate on 31.5.2004
D by the District Court, title deeds were executed in favour of the respondents
  and possession of the properties were delivered by the Court to the
  respondents on 28.6.2004. Eversince the respondents are the registered owners.
  paying land tax and other dues. Mutation also was effected in their favour.
  On 12.7.2004. respondents sold by registered sale deed no.4064 of 2001.
E 0.04047 hectares of land and old buildings no.T.C.43/1392 to 1399 therein in
  Survey No.570 (which is the part of the land in question) to Shri K.V.
  Sadanandan. The land in Survey No.556 was also sold to him by registered
  sale deed. On 22.9.2004, these respondents have also sold part of the land
  in Survey No.121/I and 122/1 and building nos.1190 and 1189 in ward No. 9
  of Ollukara Panchayat to Shri Samthej s/o Shri K. V. Sadanandan by registered
F sale deed No. 5461 of2004 of the Sub-Registrars Office Ollukkara. Thereafter,
  the purchasers are in possession of the respective land and are paying basic
  tax on land. Subsequently, the respondent No. 9 submitted an application on
  31.12.2004 for the development of the land as a housing colony to the
  Municipal Corporation ofThrissur. A plan was also submitted along with the
G application. The proposal was approved by various authorities including the
  Chief Town Planner by order No. C-2/548/05 dated 28.5.2005. The Municipal
  Corporation has duly granted permission and approved the plan by order No.
  OLK-4573/2004 dated 15.2.2006. The said permission order has also been
  produced and marked here as Annexure •B' to this affidavit. The respondents
  have also constructed compound walls around the entire area of land. They
H have filled up and leveled the land, developed and marked and plotted the
          K.R. GEORGE 1·. INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING CORP. [ LAKSHMANAN, J.J    465

 land into 80 plots, constructed internal roads, provided drainage facilities, laid A
pipes and made other facilities. The approved plan is being implemented
which provides for a School, Garden. Waling Track, Swimming Pool. Super
Market, etc. It is stated that the work is in progress. After the purchase of
the land in question, respondents have incurred huge expenditure for the
development of the land as per the approved plan. The respondents have also B
published advertisement for sale of the plots and consequently most of the
plots are already allotted to various third parts, agreements were entered into
with them and they are making payments of consideration in instalments
under the agreements. Sale deeds have already been registered to some of the
allottees of plots who have paid the consideration for their plots. True copy
of one of the sale deeds dated 26.5.2006 has also been filed and marked as C
Annexure 'C' to this affidavit. It is registered as No. 2224/1/2006 of the Sub-
Registrar's Office, Ollukkara on 26.5.2006.

      In view of the events subsequent to the sale of the properties to the
respondents, the respondents have taken various steps to obtain the plan
approved and also taken steps for construction of the building, etc. The D
Kerala Municipal Corporation has also received their dues, which were
outstanding for a very long time because of long legal battle. For the foregoing
reasons, there is absolutely no bonafide on the part of the appellant in
approaching this Court and challenging the orders passed in Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal (C.M.A. No. 63/2000) and in the Review Petition (R.P. E
No. 359 of 2003). We see no warrant for interference with the orders passed
and in view of the subsequent events, as mentioned above, both the civil
appeals stand dismissed with no orders as to costs.

K.K.T.                                                      Appeals dismissed.
                                                                                  F