JUDGMENT : (Prayer in A.No.127 of 2008: Application filed under Section 7 of Presidency Towns Insolvency Act 1909, seeking an order to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to auction notice issued by the Official Assignee, High Court, Madras as published in Tamil Daily “Thinathanthi” issue dated 28.03.2008 insofar as it relates to the land comprised in Survey No.396/4B situate in Thirunindravur village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District. A.No.142 of 2008: Application filed under Section 7 of Presidency Towns Insolvency Act 1909, seeking an order to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the auction notice issued by the Official Assignee in regard to the properties covered in I.P.No.69/1998 as published in Tamil Daily “Thinathanthi” issue dated 27.04.2008 insofar as it relates to the land comprised in Survey No.396/4A of Thirunindravur village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District.) 1. A.No.127 of 2008 has been filed under Section 7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act 1909, seeking an order to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to auction notice issued by the Official Assignee, High Court, Madras as published in Tamil Daily “Thinathanthi” issue dated 28.03.2008 insofar as it relates to the land comprised in Survey No.396/4B situate in Thirunindravur village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District. 2. A.No.142 of 2008 has been filed under Section 7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act 1909, seeking an order to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the auction notice issued by the Official Assignee in regard to the properties covered in I.P.No.69/1998 as published in Tamil Daily “Thinathanthi” issue dated 27.04.2008 insofar as it relates to the land comprised in Survey No.396/4A of Thirunindravur village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District. 3. 3. These two applications were filed by the applicant who is the third party in I.P.No.69 of 1998 seeking the aforesaid prayer of stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the auction notice issued by the Official Assignee in regard to the properties covered in I.P.No.69 of 1998 as published in Tamil Daily, Thinathanthi dated 28.03.2008, insofar as it relates to the land comprised in S.No.396/4B of Thiruninravur village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District and with the similar prayer in respect of the auction notice issued by the Official Assignee in regard to the property covered in I.P.No.69 of 1998 as published in Tamil Daily, Thinathanthi, issue dated 27.04.2008 insofar as it relates to the land comprised in S.No.396/4A of Thiruninravur village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District, pending disposal of I.P.No.69 of 1998. 4. The main Insolvency Petition, I.P.No.69 of 1998 was filed by the first respondent Insolvent, who filed the said I.P. as a Debtor Petition under Section 9(1) (f) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (herein after referred to as “the Act”). In the said I.P, this Court, by order, dated 30.07.1998 declared him as Insolvent. 5. Thereafter he filed Schedule Of Affairs, in short “SOA”, where he had disclosed 115 unsecured creditors for a sum of Rs.66,29,098/- and his total liability according to him is Rs.69,87,685.80/- and the assets to the value of Rs.22,16,358.80/-. 6. In this context, it seems that, in the SOA filed on 12.11.1998, the insolvent had disclosed the properties bearing S.Nos.396/3, 396/1, 405/4 and 200/5 to the extent of 1.37 acres. 7. Only pursuant to the said disclosure made by the insolvent in the SOA, the respondent Official Assignee proceeded to bring the property, i.e., S.No.394/4B, which, according to the OA, is 396/3, for auction sale. Accordingly auction notice was issued in the Thinathanthi Tamil Newspaper as stated supra and in that context, the third party applicant, one C.Dayalan has filed the application in A.No.127 of 2008. 8. Accordingly auction notice was issued in the Thinathanthi Tamil Newspaper as stated supra and in that context, the third party applicant, one C.Dayalan has filed the application in A.No.127 of 2008. 8. As per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of A.No.127 of 2008, the case as projected by the applicant/third party are as follows: (i) The first respondent insolvent in the main I.P was declared to be insolvent by order of this Court, dated 30.07.1998, who, during the public examination, seems to have given statement as to the schedule of affairs, where, he has stated that, among the properties, he own lands in S.No.396/3 also, measuring to an extent of 38 cents and also having lands in various other survey numbers. (ii) The Official Assignee issued notification for auction sale in respect of properties comprised in S.No.395/5 and 396/4B situate at Thiruninravur village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District which was published in Thinathanthi Tamil Newspaper on 28.03.2008, according to which, auction had to be held on 05.04.2008. (iii) It is the case of the applicant that, the property in S.No.396/4B is owned by the applicant, as he purchased the same form one Venkataramani in and by a registered sale deed dated 11.02.2004 in Doc.No.695/2004 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Avadi. (iv) The applicant had purchased total extent of 1 acre 67 cents under the said registered sale deed comprising S.Nos.396/4A, 396/4B and 396/4C, which are corresponding to the old S.No.396/4. (v) It is the further case of the applicant that, since the insolvent first respondent does not have any property in S.No.396/4B as notified in the auction notice, it was verified by the applicant and on verification, he was given to understand that, the title deeds of the insolvent referred to the S.No.396/4B and the extent of his purchase is mentioned as 72 cents. In this regard, according to the applicant, the Official Assignee without verifying the Revenue records had proceeded to issue auction notice. (vi) It is the further case of the applicant that, he is the absolute owner of the entire property of 1.67 acres in S.No.396/4, which was sub-divided subsequently into 396/4A, 4B and 4C. Apart from this land, the applicant is also owning other lands in various survey numbers such as 395/4, 5A, 396/2, 3B, 4A, 4B and 4C, 397/2B, 404/2C, 405/1, 3, 4B, 5, 6A, 7 and 406/1. Apart from this land, the applicant is also owning other lands in various survey numbers such as 395/4, 5A, 396/2, 3B, 4A, 4B and 4C, 397/2B, 404/2C, 405/1, 3, 4B, 5, 6A, 7 and 406/1. Comprising all these land, the applicant have developed a layout and which was approved by the proceedings of the Member Secretary, CMDA in Lr.No.L1/24092/2006, dated 15.12.2006. Therefore, the layout have been approved by the CMDA includes the land at S.No.396/4B also. (vii) It is the further case of the applicant that, the subject land in S.No.396/4B is not affected by any of the prohibitory transactions as provided in Sections 53 to 56 of the Act. (viii) It is the further case of the applicant that, the further verification of the Revenue records reveals that, the land at S.No.396/4 measuring to an extent of 1 acre 67 cents was originally belonged to one Lakshmi Narasimhan, who sold the entire extent to one Bhoopathy and his brother, by name M.V.Munirathinam, under sale deed, dated 17.01.1970 in Doc.No.214/1970 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Poonamallee. The said land was purchased from them by one T.K.N.Kannappan on 17.12.1979 in a registered sale deed in Doc.No.4448/1979 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Poonamallee, who in turn sold the entire extent of 1.67 acres in the said S.No.396/4 to the vendor of the applicant, namely Venkataramani by a registered sale deed, dated 04.03.1996. (ix) The applicant purchased the said extent of 1.67 acres from that Venkataramani in S.No.396/4 under the registered sale deed, dated 11.02.2004 bearing Doc.No.695/2004 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Avadi for valuable consideration. (x) In fact in the schedule mentioned in the said sale deed, under which the property in question was purchased by the applicant, it has been specifically mentioned that, the property conveyed to the applicant is comprised in S.No.396/4A, 4B and 4C corresponding to old S.No.396/4. Therefore the land in question is part of the larger extent of 1.67 acres in S.No.396/4, which has been purchased by the applicant by a valid sale registered in the Sub-Registrar Office concerned and the vendor of the applicant and other predecessors in title of the applicant right from 1970 had been continuously transferred the properties under registered sale deeds in the year 1970 and 1979. (xi) In this context, it is the further case of the applicant that, there is a land at old S.No.396/3 measuring to an extent of 1.10 acres, which was corresponding to earlier paimash No.312. The said land was owned by one V.S.Subramaniya Mudaliar who had sold the entire extent of 1.10 acres in favour of one K.Ragavalu Naidu in the year 1958 in Doc.No.1492/1958. After the death of Ragavalu Naidu, his wife and two sons executed three separate sale deeds on the same date, i.e., on 06.04.1985 to one Narayanaswamy, one Sundaram and one Chockalingam in Doc.Nos.1804/1985, 1802/1985 and 1805/1985 respectively conveying the sale of the land to the extent of 16 cents, 75 cents and 76 cents respectively, totally measuring an extent of 1.67 cents and they also mentioned in the respective sale deeds that, it was S.No.396/4 instead of mentioning S.No.396/3. (xii) Subsequent to the said sale taken place between the legal heirs of Ragavalu Naidu and the three persons mentioned above, subsequent sale also had been effected. In this regard, the insolvent first respondent derives his title through one Banumathi by virtue of registered sale deed, dated 28.09.1995 bearing Doc.No.4153/1995 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Avadi. The vendor of the insolvent had purchased the said piece of land from Chockalingam in and by sale deed, dated 14.11.1990 bearing Doc.No.6378/1990 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Poonamallee. In all the sale deeds, the survey number was mechanically given as 396/4 instead of 396/3. However based on the sale deed executed on 06.04.1985 by the legal heirs of the Ragavalu Naidu in favour of three individuals referred to above, the Revenue records were also mutated incorrectly without tallying the corresponding paimash number. (xiii) It is the further case of the applicant that, the predecessor in title of the property purchased by the insolvent, having realised the mistake, jointly applied for correction of survey number under UDR scheme and requested to issue patta for an extent of 1.10 acres only, even though they have purchased larger extent comprised in S.No.396/3, i.e., for an extent of 1.67 acres. The Tahsildar concerned of Sriperumbudur having conducted enquiry issued new Patta No.212 in the joint names of Narayanaswamy, Sundaram and Chockalingam who have purchased the land actually comprised in S.No.396/3 but with the wrong description in their sale deeds, as if the land bearing with S.No.396/4. The Tahsildar concerned of Sriperumbudur having conducted enquiry issued new Patta No.212 in the joint names of Narayanaswamy, Sundaram and Chockalingam who have purchased the land actually comprised in S.No.396/3 but with the wrong description in their sale deeds, as if the land bearing with S.No.396/4. (xiv) It is the further case of the applicant that, in the proceedings issued by the Tahsildar, dated 12.03.1996 the mistake already crept in was rectified and the extent of land comprised in S.No.396/3 was also restricted to 0.44.5 hectares, which is equivalent to 1 acre 10 cents. In the meanwhile the land in S.No.396/4 in the Revenue records were sub-divided on the basis of the sale deeds, dated 06.04.1985 as 396/4A, 396/4B and 396/4C in the name of the joint pattadhars respectively. (xv) Since the land in S.No.396/4 had already been sub-divided, the Tahsildar has issued a new Patta No.52 in favour of the then owner of the land in S.No.396/4, viz., T.K.N.Kannappan who is the predecessor in title of the property belonged to the applicant, i.e., S.No.396/4. (xvi) The change in the Revenue records had been taken place well after the purchase made by the insolvent, dated 28.09.1995 and in this regard, according to the applicant, the respondent insolvent was having knowledge about the Revenue Records. (xvii) Therefore as per the order, dated 12.03.1996 of the Tahsildar, the insolvent respondent owned the land in Patta No.212 and that the predecessor in title of the applicant herein owned the land in Patta No.52. (xviii) Thereafter the predecessor in title of the applicant, i.e., T.K.N.Kannappan was issued with fresh patta for the land comprised in S.No.396/4 measuring to an extent of 1 acre 67 cents and also for his land comprised in S.Nos.397/4, 402/2 in Pata No.357. The said T.K.N.Kannappan sold the entire extent comprised in S.No.396/4 measuring to an extent of 1 acre 67 cents in and by registered sale deed, dated 04.03.1996 bearing Doc.No.1129/1996 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Avadi in favour of the vendor of the applicant by name one Venkataramani. From the said Venkataramani, the applicant purchased the total extent of 1.67 acres in the old S.No.396/4, which was continued to be mentioned on account of sub division as S.No.396/4A, 4B and 4C, by a registered sale deed, dated 11.02.2004. From the said Venkataramani, the applicant purchased the total extent of 1.67 acres in the old S.No.396/4, which was continued to be mentioned on account of sub division as S.No.396/4A, 4B and 4C, by a registered sale deed, dated 11.02.2004. (xix) It is the further case of the applicant that, in fact the insolvent having known about the mistake entry and the subsequent order of the Tahsildar, dated 12.03.1996 resulted in issuance of new patta number after rectifying the mistake, had correctly declared in his SOA that, he owned land in S.No.396/3, even though his title deed, dated 28.09.1995 disclose different survey number as S.No.396/4B. The insolvent purchased the land in question on 28.09.1995. The Tahsildar issued new patta setting right the survey numbers of the land on 12.03.1996. The insolvent did not choose to apply for mutation of revenue records as per the order of the Tahsildar, dated 12.03.1996, whereas the applicant mutated the revenue records suitably and has also paid kist for the land in S.No.396/4A, 4B and 4C. The CMDA also having satisfied with the ownership and title of the applicant, granted approval for layout including the land in question bearing S.No.396/4B in and by order, dated 23.12.2006 for layout No.129/2006. (xx) With this definite case on the part of the applicant, since auction notice was issued by the respondent Official Assignee in respect of the property in S.No.396/4B, challenging the same, A.No.127 of 2008 has been filed with the aforesaid prayer by the applicant/third party. (xxi) Like that, the another piece of land, i.e., S.No.396/4A also was brought to the auction sale by the issuance of notice in Thinathanthi, dated 27.04.2008 fixing the date of auction as 08.05.2008 and therefore challenging that notification, the applicant/third party filed A.No.142 of 2008 with the similar prayer. (xxii) That is how, both these applications were filed by the applicant by projecting the aforesaid case in the affidavit filed in support of these two applications. 9. The insolvent respondent has filed counter affidavit for both the applications separately, where the insolvent has denied various averments made by the applicant in the respective affidavit filed in support of these applications. That apart, the insolvent has stated that, the property in S.No.396/4 belong to one K.Ragavalu Naidu who purchased the same in the year 1958 under a registered Doc.No.1492/1958. That apart, the insolvent has stated that, the property in S.No.396/4 belong to one K.Ragavalu Naidu who purchased the same in the year 1958 under a registered Doc.No.1492/1958. After his demise, his wife and sons executed three sale deeds on 06.04.1985 in favour of three persons, namely Narayanaswamy, Sundaram and Chockalingam. 10. He would further state in his counter that, the said Narayanaswamy by sale deeds, dated 28.12.1995 under Doc.No.5529/95 at SRO, Avadi conveyed to an extent of 60 cents in S.No.396/1, 16 cents in S.No.396/4A and ½ cent in S.No.395/5, in all measuring 76 ½ cents in favour of the insolvent. His further case is that, the said Chockalingam, by sale deed, dated 17.04.1989 conveyed an extent of 76 cents in S.No.396/4B in favour of one Lakshmanan, who in turn, by deed of sale, dated 14.11.1990 sold the property to one Banumathi and the said Banumathi conveyed the said property measuring 76 cents in favour of T.N.Sambandan, who in turn by a deed of sale, dated 28.09.1995 conveyed an extent of 72 cents in favour of the insolvent. 11. In both the sale deeds, according to the insolvent, the third party/applicant stood as witness. 12. Insofar as the contention raised by the applicant side that, the mentioning of survey number instead of 396/3, it has been wrongly mentioned as 396/4 right from the sale deeds taken place in the year 1985 by the legal heirs of K.Ragavalu Naidu to and in favour of three persons, from whom only properties have been transferred to the insolvent as he claimed, therefore the said mistake committed or mistake crept in the sale deed has been rectified by issuance of patta by the Tahsildar is concerned, it is incorrect, he says, and therefore, it is denied by the insolvent. 13. In this regard, the statement of the applicant that, the land at S.No.396/3 is having the extent of only 1.10 acres, whereas the land at S.No.396/4 having the extent of 1.67 acres, which was originally belonged to one Lakshmi Narasimhan, who sold to V.Bhoopathy and M.V.Munirathinam, from whom the predecessor in title of the applicant and his vendor namely T.K.N.Kannappan and Venkataramani respectively purchased the same and from whom the applicant Dayalan purchased the property on 11.02.2004 is concerned, it is not the correct statement and therefore this has not been accepted by the insolvent. 14. 14. Insofar as the declaration made by the insolvent in the SOA that, he is having land only at S.No.396/3, the insolvent has stated in his counter affidavit that, the applicant had involved in the preparation of the schedule, only on his dictation or his dictating terms, therefore, the insolvent has given the wrong disclosure, as if that he is having land at S.No.396/3, but the fact remains that, he is having land only at S.No.396/4B and 4A. By stating all these averments, the respondent insolvent filed the counter affidavit. 15. The respondent Official Assignee has filed a common report in both the applications, where the Official Assignee, in short, OA, stated that, the insolvent was declared so, by orders of this Court, dated 30.07.1998 in the main I.P. He had filed SOA on 12.11.1998, wherein he had disclosed that, he is having property at S.No.396/3, however, that is equivalent to or if it is correctly mentioned, it is only S.No.396/4B. The insolvent was doing business in four names as per his statement, but he failed to disclose the names of his partners. The insolvent formed a registered partnership firm under the name of AR.KE.VEE Investments on 19.06.1995 consisting of six partners. The firm’s all creditors are included in the schedule of affairs, dated 12.11.1998. The insolvent evaded his appearance before the OA in collusion with the applicant and only when the market value increased recently, the insolvent started to assist the OA in the year 2008. 16. The OA has further stated in the report that, the property was originally belonged to AR.KE.VEE Investments, in which the insolvent was partner, which was purchased by the applicant C.Dayalan. The insolvent has shown the applicant C.Dayalan as 111th unsecured creditor in the SOA for a sum of Rs.1,53,000/-. 17. The report further states that, the applicant in his letter, dated 01.04.2004 produced copies of the sale deeds executed in his favour for the property comprised in S.No.396/4A and 4B, whereas in the Encumbrance Certificate obtained in the Sub-Registrar Office, Avadi on 16.04.2008, the property stands in the name of insolvent Radhakrishnan. Therefore, there are strong reasons to believe that, the S.No.396/4B was erased and other number, i.e., 396/4 is added in Doc.No.1129/1996, dated 04.03.1996 at Sub-Registrar Office, Avadi. 18. Therefore, there are strong reasons to believe that, the S.No.396/4B was erased and other number, i.e., 396/4 is added in Doc.No.1129/1996, dated 04.03.1996 at Sub-Registrar Office, Avadi. 18. The OA has further stated in the report that, the applicant is not based on the document made a claim, but only based on the order passed by the Tahsildar, who is not the appropriate authority. According to the copy of the sale deed furnished by the insolvent, the property in S.No.396/4 belonged to one K.Ragavalu Naidu, who purchased in the year 1958 under a registered Doc.No.1492/1958. After his demise, his wife and two sons, on 06.04.1985 executed three sale deeds in favour of the three persons, namely Narayanaswamy, Sundaram and Chockalingam separately and from them, on 28.12.1995, the insolvent had purchased 76 ½ cents from Narayanaswamy, wherein the property bearing S.No.396/4A of 16 cents was also included. 19. Similarly, on 28.09.1995, the insolvent had purchased 72 ½ cents from one Banumathi through her agent T.N.Sambandam, vide Doc.No.4153 of 1995 and the said Banumathi purchased the said property from Chockalingam, who was one among the three purchasers from legal heirs of Ragavalu Naidu, on 14.11.1990. The property bearing S.No.396/4B for the extent of 0.72 cents also was conveyed in the said document. Therefore the insolvent Radhakrishnan acquired title to the S.Nos.396/4A, 396/4B, 395/5, 396/1 and 396/4. 20. By stating these, how the property devolved form the original owners from 1958 till the insolvent Radhakrishnan, had been stated by the Official Assignee in the report. Like that, the devolution of the title of the applicant Dayalan also has been mentioned from the original owner Lakshmi Narasimhan till the applicant Dayalan, vide his sale deed, dated 11.02.2004. 21. The Official Assignee had further stated in the report that, about the certified copy of Doc.No.1129 of 1996 from SRO, Avadi, which confers the title to Venkataramani, from whom the applicant had purchased the subject property, on verification of the copies of Doc.No.1129 of 1996 submitted by the insolvent and also the copy submitted by the applicant Dayalan, when compared, which, according to the OA, disclosed that, the copies submitted by the insolvent Radhakrishnan disclosed in the schedule three properties, which include the one, i.e., S.No.396/3 for 1.10 acres. In four boundaries, it has been mentioned 396/3. In four boundaries, it has been mentioned 396/3. Like that, in the copy submitted by the applicant Dayalan, it has been mentioned as S.No.396/4 - 1.67 acres and the certified copy obtained from the Registrar Office also tallying with the S.No.396/4 but the extent is not 1.67 acres, it was only 1.10 acres. By pointing out these changes, the OA has stated in the report that, there are reasons to believe that S.No.396/3 was deleted and in its place another number 396/4 was unauthorisedly substituted by the applicant. Therefore, according to the OA, this is an unauthorised meddling and interpolating with the contents of the original document without authority. 22. Insofar as first and second auction sale conducted in respect of property in S.Nos.396/4B and 4A respectively are concerned, the report of the OA further states that, since on the first sale, the highest bid was only Rs.31,70,000/-, whereas the reserve price fixed by the OA was Rs.47,50,000/-, another sale was decided to be conducted. In the second sale held on 03.06.2008, the sale started with opening bid of Rs.32,20,000/-, the higher bid was Rs.43,60,000/- by one N.Ramalingam s/o. G.Narayanasamy. 23. Like that, in respect of property in S.No.396/4A, along with other properties held on 08.05.2008, the highest bid was Rs.50,40,000/- but the reserve price fixed by the OA was Rs.90,00,000/-. Therefore the second sale was conducted, where the highest bid was Rs.61,40,000/- by one Rajendran. In this regard, the OA has further stated that, the market value per cent of the properties which were subjected to auction must be Rs.85,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per cent, therefore, if one more sale is conducted, the property may fetch more price. Since there was only two bids on 08.05.2008, there are reasons to believe that, there was a knock out combination among purchasers. 24. By stating all these, the OA has stated that, therefore the case put forward by the applicant in these two applications that, the paimash number of the property concerned was misconstrued by the earlier seller is only a hypothetical invention and concocted story by the applicant. Therefore the plea raised by the applicant in these two applications are liable to be rejected and these applications may be dismissed. 25. With the aforestated case and counter case projected by the parties, the learned counsel appearing for the parties made submissions. 26. Therefore the plea raised by the applicant in these two applications are liable to be rejected and these applications may be dismissed. 25. With the aforestated case and counter case projected by the parties, the learned counsel appearing for the parties made submissions. 26. Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant in both the applications has raised the following points: (i) Under Ex.P.1, dated 27.06.1958, V.S.Subramaniyam sold to Ragavalu Naidu property at S.No.396/3 which is corresponding to paimash No.312. (ii) The legal heirs of Ragavalu Naidu, i.e., wife and children of him sold the said property to three persons, namely Narayanaswamy, Sundaram and Chockalingam under Ex.P.4, Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6, dated 06.04.1985 conveying 16 cents, 75 cents and 76 cents respectively. However, only the paimash No.310 which is equivalent to S.No.396/4 is to the extent of 1.67 acres. (iii) This 1.67 acres at S.No.396/4 equivalent to paimash No.310 was mistakenly sold by the legal heirs of Ragavalu Naidu under the three sale deeds, dated 06.04.1985, wherein they sold 16 + 75 + 76 cents totally 1.67 acres, though the Ragavalu Naidu purchased under paimash No.312 only 1.10 acres. (iv) Thereafter the properties were further sold by the said three persons namely Narayanaswamy, Sundaram and Chockalingam. Insofar as the present issue is concerned, Narayanaswamy and Chockalingam share, as they purchased by sale deed, dated 06.04.1985, had been subsequently sold, wherein Narayanaswamy directly sold 16 cents to the insolvent and Chockalingam’s share in the disputed survey number was transferred to one Banumathi, by sale deed, dated 12.11.1990, i.e., 72 cents out of 76 cents and the said Banumathi sold it to the insolvent, by sale deed, dated 28.09.1995 under Ex.R.18. (v) A.No.127 of 2008 was filed for property at S.No.396/4B to the extent of 72 cents, which according to the insolvent, he purchased the same from Banumathi, under Ex.R.18. Like that, O.A.No.142 of 2008 relates to the property at S.No.396/4A for the extent of 16 cents which the insolvent claimed he purchased directly from Naryanaswamy under Ex.P.7, dated 28.12.1995. (vi) However, the case of the applicant is concerned, one Lakshmi Narasimhan, S/o. Desigachari sold under Ex.P.2 on 17.01.1970, an extent of 1 acre 67 cents in paimash No.310, which is equal to S.No.396/4 in favour of N.Bhoopathy and N.V.Munirathnam. Those two under Ex.P.3 sold the property of 1.67 acres to T.K.N.Kannappan on 17.12.1979. (vi) However, the case of the applicant is concerned, one Lakshmi Narasimhan, S/o. Desigachari sold under Ex.P.2 on 17.01.1970, an extent of 1 acre 67 cents in paimash No.310, which is equal to S.No.396/4 in favour of N.Bhoopathy and N.V.Munirathnam. Those two under Ex.P.3 sold the property of 1.67 acres to T.K.N.Kannappan on 17.12.1979. The said T.K.N.Kannappan under Ex.P.9 equivalent to Ex.R.1 and also Ex.R.21 sold the property of 1.67 acres at S.No.396/4, which are sub-divided into S.No.396/4A, 4B and 4C to and in favour of Venkataramani, dated 04.03.1996. That Venkataramani in turn sold or from whom the Dayalan, applicant purchased the property of 1.67 acres on 11.02.2004 under Ex.P.13. (vii) In 1996 Narayanaswamy, Sundaram and Chockalingam as well as T.K.N.Kannappan made joint application for patta to convert the survey numbers and these three were given joint patta No.212, which is Ex.P.10. Like that, Kannappan was given patta No.52, i.e., Ex.P.11. Like that Venkataramani got patta in his name as patta No.357, Ex.P.12. The applicant Dayalan has got patta in his favour as patta No.397, Ex.P.14. (viii) In Ex.P.10, patta for S.No.396/3, the name of Sundaram, Chockalingam and Narayanaswamy had been mentioned as joint pattadhars, where the total extent is 0.44.5 hectares, which is equivalent to 109.915 acre, that is almost 1.10 acre. (ix) Like that, in Ex.P.11, Kannappan was given patta for S.No.396/4A, 4B and 4C for the total extent of 0.67.5 hectares, which is equivalent to 1.67 acres. (x) Pursuant to the patta issued, the mistake committed hitherto was rectified, as the property of 1.67 acres with old paimash No.310 is equal to S.No.396/4 which was subsequently sub-divided into S.No.396/4A, 4B and 4C. Like that, the property to the extent of 1.10 acres at old paimash No.312 is equal to S.No.396/3. (xi) After this rectification having been made, ofcourse with the joint request made by the erstwhile owners, namely Narayanaswamy, Sundaram and Chockalingam as well as Kannappan, this confusion had been cleared. (xii) Subsequently, when Venkataramani purchased the land from Kannappan, he apply independently and got patta for 1.67 acres at S.No.396/4 under Ex.P.12. Like that, when applicant purchased the property from Venkataramani, he applied patta independently and was given Patta No.397 for S.No.396/4 which consisting of sub-division 4A, 4B and 4C for the extent of 1.67 acres, under Ex.P.14. (xiii) CMDA approved the applicant layout under Ex.P.16, out of which plots were sold to third parties. Like that, when applicant purchased the property from Venkataramani, he applied patta independently and was given Patta No.397 for S.No.396/4 which consisting of sub-division 4A, 4B and 4C for the extent of 1.67 acres, under Ex.P.14. (xiii) CMDA approved the applicant layout under Ex.P.16, out of which plots were sold to third parties. (xiv) In Ex.P.19, it is a 1954 document, i.e., Survey Land Register, where the paimash No.312 is corresponding to S.No.396/3 and paimash No.310 is corresponding to S.No.396/4. (xv) Like that, 1960 A-Register, i.e., Ex.P.21 also discloses that, property at S.No.396/2 to the extent of 0.30 acres belongs to one Kannappa Mudaliar, the property at S.No.396/3 to the extent of 1.10 acres belongs to one Ragavalu Naidu and the property at S.No.396/4 to the extent of 1.67 acres belongs to Desigachari. (xvi) In Ex.P.9, the extent of 1.67 acres was changed or corrected as 1.10 acres. However, the stamp duty valued at Rs.1,28,590/- has not been changed, because Rs.1,28,590/- was exactly the stamp duty payable as per the guideline value of the property at the extent of 1.67 acres but not for 1.10 acres. (xvii) In order to explain the guideline value at the relevant point of time, Ex.P.22 obtained from Sub-Registrar Office under RTI Act has been marked. (xviii) Ex.P.6 is a document under which Sundaram purchased the property from the legal heirs of Ragavalu Naidu and the said Sundaram sold the same to one Venkateswaran under Ex.P.8, where it was originally mentioned in the schedule as S.No.396/3 acre 0.72 cent in 75 cents, however, it has been scored off and manuscriptly written as S.No.396/4C. (xix) In Ex.R.18, the survey number as well as the extent differs. (xx) The Official Assignee has not explained as to how she got knowledge about the disputed property belongs to the insolvent. In this regard, the R.W.2, i.e., the representative of the Official Assignee in his cross-examination stated that, he did not know about Ex.R.17. (xxi) The SOA filed by the OA cannot also form any basis for the OA to come to a conclusion that, S.No.396/4 or 396/4B also belongs to insolvent. (xxii) In the SOA, dated 12.11.1998, it was mentioned an extent of 38 cents only. Therefore the OA should have conducted an enquiry, which she had not conducted and no public meeting of creditors, according to RW1 was conducted. (xxii) In the SOA, dated 12.11.1998, it was mentioned an extent of 38 cents only. Therefore the OA should have conducted an enquiry, which she had not conducted and no public meeting of creditors, according to RW1 was conducted. Therefore in this regard, Section 36 of the Act was not invoked or followed by the OA. (xxiii) The other survey numbers covered under the proceedings of the OA is S.No.396/1 to the extent of 60 cents and 405/4 to the extent of 28 cents, totally 88 cents. If this 88 cents is reduced from total 1.28 acres said to have been claimed by the insolvent, the remaining is only 40 cents. Therefore the remaining 40 cents alone in the name of insolvent at Thirunindravur must be there. It does not tally with 1.67 acres at S.No.396/4 claimed by the applicant. (xxiv) Though it was claimed that, there was a meeting at OA’s office, where the insolvent attended, however, the OA suggest that there was no meeting. (xxv) Regarding boundary, the eastern boundary of the property, namely lake/canal (“TAMIL”) does not tally with the document of the insolvent under Ex.P.1, dated 27.06.1958, as when the property was conveyed only paimash number has been given. (xxvi) In Ex.R.14, the boundary description says on the North of the property it is S.No.396/4. Under Ex.R.5, there is no boundary mentioned as lake (Vhp) on any side in this deed. Therefore there is a complete deviation or error occurred in this deed with regard to the boundary. (xxvii) Under Ex.R.16, it is mentioned in the boundary as “TAMIL” that means the property under conveyance is situated east to lake. If this boundary prevail over survey number or extent of the property, they have to be proved by the executant of the sale deed and he should have been examined. However, no such examination of executant on the side of the respondent was made. However, on the side of the applicant/P.W.2, the vendor of the applicant was examined to confirm the property in question, survey number as well as the boundaries. (xxviii) Relying on 2007 (4) CTC 125 , it was submitted that, Section 4 of the Patta Passbook Act 1983, gives statutory presumption about the entry made in the patta passbook. Section 6 deals with that the entries in the patta passbook is the prima facie evidence of title. (xxviii) Relying on 2007 (4) CTC 125 , it was submitted that, Section 4 of the Patta Passbook Act 1983, gives statutory presumption about the entry made in the patta passbook. Section 6 deals with that the entries in the patta passbook is the prima facie evidence of title. (xxix) As per the principle laid down in (2018) 6 SCC 518 , the revenue records creates a statutory presumption, of course rebuttable. Unless and until that is rebutted by adducing evidence to the acceptance of the Court, the statutory presumption will prevail. (xxx) These submissions were made by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant in support of their case. 27. In response to the said arguments advanced by the applicant side, Mr.K.V.Ananthakrushnan, learned counsel for the Official Assignee has made the following submissions: (i) Four dates are important. In I.P.No.69 of 1998, the insolvent was adjudicated and declared so on 30.07.1998. On 12.11.1998 insolvent filed SOA. The total liability is Rs.69,87,685.80/- assets are for Rs.22,16,358.80/-. (ii) Notification for auction, dated 05.04.2008. Insofar as boundary is concerned, west by lake/channel, i.e., “TAMIL”/On 08.05.2008, interim order was passed, auction sale shall go on but not to confirm was ordered. Auction amount also had been deposited by the highest bidder. There are discrepancies in the documents. Paimash No.310 equal to S.No.396/4 and paimash No.312 equal to S.No.396/3. (iii) Exs.P.2 and P.3, dated 17.11.1970 and 17.12.1979 do not contain boundaries. The statement of insolvent regarding his conduct in mentioning the survey number as 396/3 instead of 396/4B can be taken notice. (iv) Though the insolvent had filed SOA in 1998 itself, where he disclose these two properties also, the OA did not act upon till 2008, even though he was declared insolvent on 30.07.1998 itself. It is true that, there is no explanation given by OA for this inaction for more than 10 years. (v) On 27.06.2001, public examination was conducted. Under Ex.P.2, which is the earliest document of predecessor in title of the applicant, where there is no boundary mentioned. Similarly no boundary has been mentioned under per Ex.P.3 for 1.67 acres at S.No.396/4 but common boundary mentioned in Ex.P.3. Under Ex.P.8 when the property was conveyed from Sundaram to Venkateswaran, though it was mentioned as S.No.396/3 as per patta, it is 396/4. Similarly no boundary has been mentioned under per Ex.P.3 for 1.67 acres at S.No.396/4 but common boundary mentioned in Ex.P.3. Under Ex.P.8 when the property was conveyed from Sundaram to Venkateswaran, though it was mentioned as S.No.396/3 as per patta, it is 396/4. In the index sheet of the Registrar Office of Ex.R.15, the total extent is mentioned only as 2.59 acres, wherein the property of S.No.396/4 is 1.10 acres. (vi) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent insolvent also made submissions stating that, there was no notice issued to the insolvent before issuance of patta, which are mainly now claimed by the applicant. In respect of all other aspects, the details given by the insolvent in the counter affidavit are to be taken note of, he contended. 28. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the voluminous materials filed before this Court. 29. Insofar as the case of the applicant as projected by them, as to how the applicant become the owner of the property in question at S.No.396/4 consisting of 396/4A, 4B and 4C to the extent of 1.67 acres, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant has traced title from one Lakshmi Narasimhan. Under Ex.P.2. Lakshmi Narasimhan, S/o. Desigachari, who is the original owner of the property in question consisting of 1.67 acres, has conveyed the same to and in favour of two persons, namely Bhoopathy and Munirathinam (that Munirathinam was minor at that time, brother of Bhoopathy, S/o. Venkatachala Naidu). This was executed on 17.01.1970, where the following has been conveyed: “TAMIL” 30. The said Bhoopathy and Munirathinam executed the sale deed, under Ex.P.3, where the property in question has been conveyed with the following schedule: “TAMIL” 31. The said Kannappan sold the property to and in favour of one N.Venkataramani by Ex.P.9, dated 04.03.1996, where the property in question has been conveyed with the following: “TAMIL” 32. The said Bhoopathy and Munirathinam executed the sale deed, under Ex.P.3, where the property in question has been conveyed with the following schedule: “TAMIL” 31. The said Kannappan sold the property to and in favour of one N.Venkataramani by Ex.P.9, dated 04.03.1996, where the property in question has been conveyed with the following: “TAMIL” 32. Only from the said N.Venkataramani, the applicant Dayalan purchased the property under Ex.P.13, dated 11.02.2004, where also the property has been conveyed like this: “And whereas on an application for patta by the vendor herein the Revenue authorities on verifying the boundaries found that S.No.396/4, which was assigned to the said 1 acre and 67 cents as per the Thiruninravur village survey record, was reclassified and sub-divided as S.No.396/4A, 4B, 4C totally measuring an extent of 1 acre and 67 cents and the patta was issued to the vendor. ... SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of agricultural lands comprised in S.No.396/4A, 4B, 4C (Old S.No.396/4) situate at Thiruninravur village, Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvellore District, the lands measuring an extent of 1 acre and 67 cents and bounded on the North by: Lands comprised in S.No.396/1 belonging to Radhakrishnan South by: Channel comprised in S.No.397/1 East by: Lands belonging to Venkatesan and the lands comprised in S.No.397/2B. West by: The lands comprised in S.No.395/4. Within the Sub-Registration District of Avadi and the Registration District of South Chennai. According to Indian Stamp Act 3(1) the present market value statement. S.No. Survey No. Nature Extent Acr. Cent. Market value Rs. 1. 396/4-A, 4-B, 4-C Nanjai 1.67 3,05,610 33. Like that, on the side of the insolvent, whose case is supported by OA, they traced the title for the property in question, i.e., S.No.396/4B and 4A are concerned, from one V.S.Subramaniya Mudaliar. According to them, V.S.Subramaniya Mudaliar conveyed the property in question in entirety to and in favour of one Ragavalu Naidu by a registered sale deed, dated 27.06.1958, which is Ex.P.1. Since the said sale deed does not have any schedule and it is a short document, the entire recital, for easy reference, are extracted hereunder : “TAMIL” 34. The said Ragavalu Naidu since expired, whose legal heir wife Rajam and sons Eswara Rao and Mohan sold the property in question to three persons namely Narayanaswamy, Sundaram and Chockalingam on 06.04.1985 under Ex.P.4, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.5. 35. The said Ragavalu Naidu since expired, whose legal heir wife Rajam and sons Eswara Rao and Mohan sold the property in question to three persons namely Narayanaswamy, Sundaram and Chockalingam on 06.04.1985 under Ex.P.4, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.5. 35. In Ex.P.4, 16 cents at S.No.396/4 has been conveyed which is one of the property in question which reads thus: “TAMIL” 36. Under Ex.P.5, part of the property was conveyed to Chockalingam which reads thus: “TAMIL” 37. Like that, under Ex.P.6, some portion of the property in question conveyed to Sundaram, which reads thus: “TAMIL” 38. From that Narayanaswamy, the 0.16 cents, he purchased under Ex.P.4 was sold to K.Radhakrishnan, the insolvent under Ex.R.15, which reads thus: “TAMIL” 39. Like that, the portion purchased by Chockalingam under Ex.P.5 was sold to one Banumathi under Ex.R.17, which reads thus : “TAMIL” 40. The said Banumathi sold the said portion of the property to the insolvent by Ex.R.18, where the property has been conveyed. That is how the insolvent claims ownership of 16 cents in S.No.396/4 and 72 cents in S.No.396/4 which was subsequently, according to him, sub-divided as S.No.396/4A and 396/4B. 41. On perusal of these documents, one crucial aspect is noticed by this court, which has not been projected or argued by any side. It is the definite case on the part of the insolvent as well as the Official Assignee that, the property in question consisting of 1.67 acres at S.No.396/4 which were later sub-divided to 4A, 4B and 4C originally belonged to Subramaniya Mudaliar, who conveyed the same to Ragavalu Naidu, from whom Narayanaswamy, Chockalingam and Sundaram purchased by dividing the properties as 16 cents, 76 cents and 75 cents respectively and the 16 cents purchased by Narayanaswamy was subsequently purchased by the insolvent Radhakrishnan and the 76 cents purchased by Chockalingam was conveyed to one Banumathi from whom it was purchased by the insolvent Radhakrishnan. 42. Here, it is to be noted that, in Ex.P.1, dated 27.06.1958, Subramaniya Mudaliar conveyed several properties under various paimash number such as 312, 314, 315, 316 in Patta No.650 and paimash No.327 in Patta No.26. The total extent of property conveyed under Patta No.650 was 1.28 acres and the total extent conveyed under Patta No.26 under paimash No.327 was 31 cents. All together, the total extent of property conveyed by Subramaniya Mudaliar to Ragavalu Naidu was 1.59 acres alone. The total extent of property conveyed under Patta No.650 was 1.28 acres and the total extent conveyed under Patta No.26 under paimash No.327 was 31 cents. All together, the total extent of property conveyed by Subramaniya Mudaliar to Ragavalu Naidu was 1.59 acres alone. This has been specifically mentioned in the sale deed, which has been in entirety extracted herein above. 43. Like that, as far as applicant’s title is concerned, it starts from Lakshmi Narasimhan, who conveyed the same to one Bhoopathy and Munirathinam, by sale deed, dated 17.01.1970, where they conveyed the total extent of 3.96 acres under 2 survey numbers, one S.No.396/4, extent of 1.67 acres, another S.No.397/2, extent 2.29 acres, so thus, 1.67 + 2.29 totally 3.96 conveyed to Bhoopathy and Munirathinam. The corresponding paimash numbers which were also mentioned in the sale deed, i.e., Ex.P.2 are 310, 288, 289, 290 and 291. 44. It is to be noted that, the paimash numbers mentioned in Ex.P.1 are different from paimash numbers mentioned in Ex.P.2. Moreover, there is no dispute with regard to the paimash No.310 and 312. Paimash No.310 is equivalent to S.No.396/4 and 312 is equivalent to S.No.396/3. Moreover when the very total extent itself under various paimash numbers conveyed by Subramaniya Mudaliar to Ragavalu Naidu under Ex.P.1 is only 1.59 acres, out of which, there could be no separate property of paimash number 312 or equivalent to S.No.396/4 as claimed by the insolvent side to the extent of 1.67 acres. When the very total extent of the whole property purchased by Ragavalu Naidu itself is only 1.59 acres, out of which, only in S.No.394/4, 1.67 acres cannot be conveyed by the legal heirs of Ragavalu Naidu. Therefore, there is a initial defect found in the sale taken place between Ragavalu Naidu’s legal heirs and Narayanaswamy, Sundaram and Chockalingam under Exs.P.4, P.5 and P.6. 45. Under the said Exs.P.4, P.5 and P.6, 16 cents, 76 cents and 75 cents respectively conveyed by the legal heirs of Ragavalu Naidu to these three persons, it comes totally 1.67 acres, whereas Ragavalu Naidu purchased from Subramaniya Mudaliar not only under paimash No.312 but under various paimash numbers only the extent of 1.59 acres and therefore, absolutely there could be no chance of conveying 1.67 acres of lands by the legal heirs of Ragavalu Naidu to these three persons. Therefore this basic factor was not noticed at that time of subsequent purchases by the purchasers including the insolvent. 46. Subsequently, it seems that, in respect of the mistake committed in various sale deeds taken place from 1958 to 1996 between various parties, where the insolvent claim title, request had been made by the erstwhile owners, i.e., Narayanaswamy, Sundaram, Chockalingam as well as the predecessor in title of the applicant, Kannappan for issuance of patta. The said request having been considered by the Revenue authorities and thereby rectifying the said mistakes, two separate pattas were issued under Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 on 12.03.1996. Ex.P.10 is Patta No.212 jointly issued in the name of Sundaram, Chockalingam and Narayanaswamy, where the total extent under the said patta in S.No.396/3 mentioned as 0.44.5 hectares, which is equivalent to 109.915 acres, i.e., 1.10 acres. 47. Like that, under Ex.P.11, patta was given to the said T.K.S.Kannappan, who is the predecessor in title of the applicant for S.No.396/4A, 4B and 4C jointly, that is the entire extent of the S.No.396/4 for 0.67.5 hectares, which is equivalent to 1.67 acres. 48. These details have clearly disclosed that, the property, when was conveyed by the legal heirs of Ragavalu Naidu to the three persons namely, Narayanaswamy, Sundaram and Chockalingam, they mistakenly noted the extent, as if that they got title over the property of 1.67 acres, that is why they mistakenly mentioned the S.No.396/4 instead of 396/3. That mistake had been continuously taken place till the insolvent purchased part of the properties under two sale deeds, i.e., the property which they claimed to be 396/4A and 396/4B from Narayanaswamy and from Banumathi. 49. Since these mistakes had already been rectified and Exs.P.10 and P.11 were separately issued, having knowledge about the same, the insolvent has correctly declared that, he has got property only under S.No.396/3. When that was so, on what basis the Official Assignee has taken it as the property in S.No.396/4B or 4A and accordingly proceeded to go for public auction is not convincingly explained by the O.A., in their report or at the time of argument by the learned counsel appearing for O.A. 50. When that was so, on what basis the Official Assignee has taken it as the property in S.No.396/4B or 4A and accordingly proceeded to go for public auction is not convincingly explained by the O.A., in their report or at the time of argument by the learned counsel appearing for O.A. 50. Though a report to that effect has been filed by the OA, on perusal of the same, there is no justification on the part of the OA to establish that, the property belongs to the insolvent is the property or part of the property of S.No.396/4 to the extent of 1.67 acres. 51. On the other hand, as far as the claim of the applicant is concerned, the title of the property flows correctly from the original owner Lakshmi Narasimhan till the applicant Dayalan. Everywhere the property extent has been correctly mentioned and also the boundaries have been correctly mentioned. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant, in several places, the boundaries have not been mentioned in the sale deeds made in favour of the various purchasers on the insolvent side. Subsequently, separate patta also had been claimed and granted in favour of the vendor of the applicant Venkataramani and also to the applicant. 52. Even the Ex.P.9, dated 04.03.1996 has been disputed by the Official Assignee side stating that, there had been discrepancy in mentioning the survey number and the extent of the land by comparing Ex.P.9 with Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.21 and to that extent, the report of the OA stated that, there has been discrepancy in the document filed by the applicant. Even according to the certified copy issued by the Registrar Office, which is Ex.R.21, the survey number has been correctly given as 396/4. Merely because the extent has been mentioned as 1.10 acres in pen, which is having a difference between Ex.P.9, the same cannot be taken into as a conclusive proof to come to a conclusion that, the entire 1.67 acres of land at S.No.396/4 belongs to Ragavalu Naidu. 53. The Ragavalu Naidu had not purchased any property under a particular survey number or paimash number to the extent of 1.67 acres. This has been proved beyond doubt under Ex.P.1 as under the said exhibit, the total extent under varius paimash numbers conveyed by Subramaniya Mudaliar to Ragavalu Naidu was only 1.59 acres. 53. The Ragavalu Naidu had not purchased any property under a particular survey number or paimash number to the extent of 1.67 acres. This has been proved beyond doubt under Ex.P.1 as under the said exhibit, the total extent under varius paimash numbers conveyed by Subramaniya Mudaliar to Ragavalu Naidu was only 1.59 acres. Therefore, absolutely there is no scope to expand the extent by Ragavalu Naidu or his legal heirs and therefore, as I pointed out earlier, when the legal heirs of Ragavalu Naidu conveyed the property to three persons, namely, Narayanaswamy, Sundaram and Chockalingam under Exs.P.4, P.5 and P.6, not only wrongly mentioned the survey number but also wrongly mentioned the extent of totally 1.67 acres by dividing the same into 16 cents, 76 cents and 75 cents. Such an extent of 1.67 acres since has never been purchased by Ragavalu Naidu, the same could not have been conveyed, as the legal heirs of Ragavalu Naidu did not hold such land of 1.67 acres in one survey number and therefore, the mistake committed on the side of the insolvent, had subsequently been rectified correctly, ofcourse by the Revenue authorities, where they have issued Exs.P.10 and P.11, which, in the given circumstances can very well be taken as valid documents. 54. In view of the above, this Court feel that, there could be no iota of doubt on the claim made by the applicant in respect of the property in question, i.e., S.No.396/4B and 4A which are subject matter in these two applications and therefore, the move taken by the Official Assignee to bring these two properties under public auction sale, as if they belonged to the insolvent, is a wrong presumption and therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that, the properties in question under these applications cannot be brought for sale under public auction in this insolvency proceedings as those properties are not belonged to the insolvent instead it belongs to the applicant. 55. In view of the above, both these applications are allowed and the auction sale effected in respect of these two properties shall have no legal effect and if any amount is deposited by the highest bidder in respect of these properties, the same shall be returned to them. However, there shall be no order as to costs.