Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6263  OF 2013 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 27152 OF 2008)

RAJESWARI (DEAD) BY LRS ... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE ... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order  

passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in O.S.A.No.293 of  

2005, dated 30.07.2008. By the impugned judgment and order, the High  

Court has rejected the prayers made by the appellant, late Smt.  

Rajeswari, who is now represented by her Legal Representatives in  

Application No.461 of 2004 in I.P.No.79 of 1972.   

3. The  instant  case  has  a  checkered  history.  One  B.C.  

Munirathinam Naidu had filed an Insolvency Petition No.79 of 1972  

before the Trial Court under the provisions of the Presidency Towns  

Insolvent  Act  of  1909  (for  short  'the  Act').  The  aforesaid  

proceedings reached up to this Court in a Special Leave Petition in  

I.A.No.2646 of 1979. This Court, vide its order dated 29.03.1982 had  

disposed of the application and directed that the property of the  

insolvent could be sold and the creditors be paid out of the sale  

proceeds. The orders so passed by this Court was accepted by the  

parties concerned.

Page 2

2

4. The High Court, pursuant to the orders of this court dated  

29.03.1982  in  I.A.No.2646  of  1979,  had  appointed  an  Advocate  

Commissioner and directed the Commissioner to furnish the list of  

persons who are in occupation of the vast extent of the properties  

owned by insolvent B.C. Munirathinam Naidu. Unfortunately, the name  

of  the appellant  was not  reflected in  the list  prepared by  the  

Advocate Commissioner.

5. After  the  inspection  by  the  Advocate  Commissioner,  the  

Official Assignee of the Court had inspected the site and produced  

the list before the High Court and in the said list, the name of the  

appellant did find a place and was reflected at Serial No. 145.

6. Subsequently, the Official Assignee once again inspected  

the site on 18.08.1994 and gave the list of persons who are actually  

in  possession  of  the  properties  owned  by  the  insolvent  B.C.  

Munirathinam Naidu.  In the said list, the name of the appellant was  

at Serial No. 136.

7. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in its order  

dated 24.08.1994 was pleased to accept the report of the Official  

Assignee and thereafter had passed the order directing the Official  

Assignee to issue demand notices to the persons whose names find a  

place in the list submitted by him and after collecting the value of  

the site, execute the sale deed in favour of those persons. In fact,  

the Official Assignee by demand notice dated 27.09.1994 directed the  

appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.8,311/-. After receipt of the said

Page 3

3

demand notice, the appellant has deposited the amount as demanded by  

the Official Assignee.  

8. In spite of long lapse of time, the Official Assignee had  

not executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant which prompted  

the appellant to approach the High Court by filing  Application  

No.461  of 2004  in I.P.No.79  of 1972.   The  said application  was  

rejected by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division  

Bench of High Court of Madras.  Aggrieved by the orders of the High  

Court, the appellant (through L.Rs.) is before us in this Civil  

Appeal.

9. We  have  heard  Shri  K.K.Mani,  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellants and Shri P.B. Suresh, learned counsel for the respondent-

Official Assignee.

10. The  facts  more  or  less  are  not  in  dispute.   The  only  

dispute appears to be is that the appellant's name did not find a  

place in the list prepared by the Advocate Commissioner but was  

reflected in the report submitted by the Official Assignee, not once  

but twice.  In our view, the High Court ought not to have given much  

importance to the report of the Advocate Commissioner, since the  

Official  Assignee  had  made  joint  inspection  of  the  property  in  

dispute and had found that the appellant is in actual possession of  

the  property  and  therefore  should  have  directed  the  Official  

Assignee to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant. Since  

that  has  not  been  done  by  the  High  Court,  in  our  opinion,  the  

judgment and order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained.

Page 4

4

11. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the  

impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.  We now direct  

the Official Assignee to execute the sale deed in favour of the  

legal  representatives  of  the  appellant  -  late  Smt.Rajeswari,  as  

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months' time from  

the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

12. The Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.     

Ordered accordingly.

...................J. ( H. L. DATTU )

...................J. ( M. Y. EQBAL )

NEW DELHI; AUGUST 05, 2013.