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

2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 26096

MADRAS HIGH COURT
B.V.REDDY ENTERPRISES PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
MR.S.MURALI MANI & 4 OTHERS – Respondent
CS 285 2014



C.S.No.285 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 02.03.2023

Pronounced on : 01.09.2023

CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

C.S.No.285 of 2014

and A.Nos.365 & 2639 of 2016 in C.S.No.285 of 2014

B.V.Reddy Enterprises Private Limited

Rep. by its Director Mr.V.Dinesh Reddy

Having registered office at

No.232, Kilpauk Garden Road

Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.

Now at :

Old No.31, New No.7, Swarna Home

I Floor, Vadivelu Street

Perambur, Chennai - 600 011.

.... Plaintiff

Vs

1.S.Murali Mani

2.S.Balan Mani

Both represented by their Power Agent

Mr.Arjunlal Sunderdas

3.Arjunlal Sunderdas

4.S.M.Lal

5.The Official Assignee, High Court, Madras.

[Representing the estate of Arjunlal Sunderdas

(Insolvent)]

.... Defendants

(5th defendant impleaded as per order

dated 17.08.2015 in Appln.No.4741 of 2015)

1/69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.S.No.285 of 2014

(D1 to D4 set exparte vide order dated 27.04.2015)

Prayer : Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules read with Order

VII Rule 1 of CPC., praying for a judgment and decree :

i. granting a decree for specific performance directing the defendants 1

and 2 to execute and register sale deed through their power agents

defendants 3 and 4 herein either acting jointly or severally absolutely

conveying the schedule mentioned property free of all encumbrances

in favour of the plaintiff as per the terms of agreement for sale dated

13.12.2006 entered between the defendants 1 and 2 represented by

their power agents defendants 3 and 4 herein and the plaintiff within

the time fixed by this Hon'ble Court, failing which directing an officer

of the court to perform the same;

ii. directing the defendants 1 and 2 represented by their power agents

defendants 3 and 4 herein either acting jointly or severally to deliver

vacant possession of the schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff

within the time fixed by this Court;

iii. for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents.

servants and men and everyone claiming under them or acting on their

behalf from in any way alienating or encumbering the schedule

mentioned property in any manner whatsoever;

iv. for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents,

servants and men and everyone claiming under them or acting on their

2/69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.S.No.285 of 2014

behalf from in any way altering the physical features of the schedule

mentioned property either by putting up construction or by inducting

any third parties into the schedule mentioned property in any manner

whatsoever;

v. directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff;

vi. and grant such other suitable relief as this Court may deem fit on the

facts and circumstances of this case.

For Plaintiff

: Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, Senior Advocate

for Mr.B.Arvind Srevatsa

For Defendants

: Mr.K.V.Ananthakrushnan

Asst. by Ms.A.Janani for Official Assignee (D5)

& Mr.Arun Sabapathy, Deputy Official Assignee

D1 to D4 - set exparte

JUDGMENT

1.1 This is a suit for specific enforcement of a sale agreement dated 13.12.2006

against defendants 1 and 2, through their Power Agent, the defendants 3 and 4.

The suit property is stated to measure 5.5 grounds in R.Sy. No:97/3 in Block

No.17, bearing New Door No.33 at College Road, Nungambakkam.

3/69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.S.No.285 of 2014

1.2 During the pendency of the suit, the third defendant was adjudicated as an

insolvent, and his estate vested with the Official Assignee of this Court. The

Official Assignee (henceforth will also be referred to as OA) has since been

impleaded as the 5th defendant, vide an order dated 17.08.2015. He alone

contested the suit defending the estate of the 3rd defendant. It may be stated

that pending suit, the 3rd defendant had passed away.

Pleadings:

2.1 The case of the Plaintiff is as follows:

a) The suit property originally belonged

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