SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Mad) 1821

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, JJ.
Mrs. Lakshmi (Deceased) and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
M/s. Unique Industrial Handlers (P) Ltd. - Respondent
A.S. No. 322 of 2018 and C.M.P. No. 7952 of 2018 and Cross Objection No. 30 of 2018
Decided On : 14-09-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. K. Govindan
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Rajasekar

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code,1908- Order VI ,Rule 4 - Companies Act, 1956 - Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits and Valuation Act, 1955 – Section 42 - Appellants are defendants in O.S.No.1645 o on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, City Civil Court - Said suit was filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff seeking for directing the defendants specifically to perform their obligations under the Agreement of Sale by executing and registering the Sale Deed in respect of the suit schedule property on receipt, for a mandatory injunction directing - Defendants to do all acts necessary to put the plaintiff in full possession of the suit schedule property, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men -1st defendant is the mother of 2nd defendant 3rd defendant is son of the 2nd defendant - During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died - hence, the defendants 2 & 3 were recorded as the Legal Heirs of the 1st defendant - Subsequently, the 2nd defendant also died during the pendency of the suit; hence, his wife/mother of the 3rd defendant was brought on record as the Legal Heir of the 2nd defendant arraying her as fourth defendant – Held, High Court modified decree to the extent that the sale deed was to be executed by respondents together with the petitioner - In short, decree was passed by the High Court not only against respondents but also against the subsequent purchaser i.e., petitioner and thus petitioner was himself the judgment debtor and it cannot be said that he was a third person in possession and, therefore, relief for possession must be claimed - Court opinion that plaintiff is entitled for relief of specific performance, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction as sought for by the plaintiff in the suit - appeal filed by the defendants is dismissed and the Cross-Objection filed by the plaintiff is allowed - Judgment and decree passed by Court below is confirmed in respect of granting the relief’s of specific performance and permanent injunction; and same is set aside in respect of rejecting the relief of mandatory injunction - Said amount has to be deposited by the plaintiff, after adjusting the amount that has already been paid, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment - Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBBIAH, J.

The appellants are the defendants in O.S.No.1645 of 2012 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff seeking for the following relief’s :-

(a) directing the defendants specifically to perform their obligations under the Agreement of Sale dated 25.07.2007 by executing and registering the Sale Deed in respect of the suit schedule property on receipt of the balance sale consideration and, in default, directing the Registry to execute and register a Sale Deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff at its expense upon deposit of the balance sale consideration to the credit of the suit,

(b) for a mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to do all acts necessary to put the plaintiff in full possession of the suit schedule property,

(c) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men, servants or any other person or persons from in any way alienating, mortgaging, encumbering or creating charge over the suit property.

2. The 1st defendant Mrs. Lakshmi is the mother of the 2nd defendant Mr.M.J.Seshagiri. The 3rd defendant M.M.Jankiraman is the son of the 2nd defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died; hence, the defendants 2 & 3 were recorded as the Legal Heirs of the 1st defendant. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant also died during the pendency of the suit; hence, his wife/mother of the 3rd defendant was brought on record as the Legal Heir of the 2nd defendant arraying her as fourth defendant.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their rankings in the suit as the plaintiff and defendants.

4. Originally, the plaintiff filed the above said suit before this Court in C.S.No.908 of 2008 against the defendants 1 to 3 for the above said relief. In the said suit, the defendants were set exparte and an exparte decree was passed by this Court on 23.02.2010 and thereafter, the plaintiff had filed an execution petition in E.P.No.3277 of 2010 and the same was also allowed. Thereafter, a sale deed was executed by the Assistant Registrar-I (O.S), on 23.02.2011 on deposit of balance sale consideration and registered as Doc.No.394 of 2011 in the Office of Sub-Registrar. Thereafter, on coming to know about the execution proceedings, the defendants had taken steps to restore the suit to file, by filing an application to condone delay in filing application for setting aside the exparte decree and another application to set aside the exparte decree. The said applications were allowed and the suit was restored to the file of this Court. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to the file of the VII Additional City Civil Court at Chennai and renumbered as O.S.No.1645 of 2012.

5. The facts of the case of the plaintiff, inter alia, are as follows :

5-1. The plaintiff is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at No. 206-208, Nahar & Seth Industrial Estate, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai and Regional Office at A-3, Anandh Shree Apartments, Old No.32, New No.6, Hindi Prachara Sabha Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. The defendants are the absolute owners of the Flat measuring to an extent of 1030 sq.ft bearing No.F1, Block No. B in the First Floor of the building called 'Parsn Apartments' situated at Old Door No. 109, New No. 46, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai, together with 515 sq.ft. undivided share of land comprised in R.S.Nos.61 and 62 currently in T.S.Nos.4801 and 6778 in T.Nagar Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai District measuring to an extent of 14 grounds 2240 sq.ft or thereabouts.

5-2. The suit property was originally purchased by one M.S. Janakiraman, S/o. M.R. Seshagiri Aiah from M/s. Parsn Foundation and Engineering Corporation, having its registered Office at No. 78-B, Nirman Bhavan, No. 227, Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021, by way of Sale D




































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top