S.A.(MD) No.510 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON

13.12.2023

PRONOUNCED ON

22.12.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

S.A.(MD) No.510 of 2023

and

C.M.P.(MD) No.12166 of 2023

Nakoda Homes Pvt.Ltd.,

rep.through its partners,

S.Bhawarlal

R.Shanmuganathan (died)

..Appellant

Vs.

Thirupparankundram Arumuga

Nainar Trust

rep. Through its trustees

1.S.Venugopal

2.T.A.S.Ramasubramanian (died)

3.S.Durga Balakumar

(R2 died and exonerated vide Court

order dated 15.09.2023)

...Respondents

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., to set aside the

judgment and decree of the Court of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai

Town dated 11.07.2023 in A.S.No.35 of 2021 confirming the judgment and decree

1/33

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

S.A.(MD) No.510 of 2023

on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town dated 29.04.2021 in

O.S.No.976 of 2013.

For Appellants

: Mr.M.Vallinayagam Senior Counsel for

M/s.A.Amala

For Respondents

: Mr.T.R.Subramanian

JUDGMENT

This second appeal is filed challenging the concurrent judgments in

A.S.No.35 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai and

O.S.No.976 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai.

2.The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.976 of 2013 for the

following reliefs a) for declaring the registered lease deed dated 30.03.2007

entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants is null and void, in-

executable and inoperative under law; a (i) for directing the defendants to vacate

the suit property and hand over the keys thereof with vacant possession; b) for

permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way altering or

changing the character of the suit property and c) for costs.

3.The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the plaintiffs are the trustees

of Thirupparankundram Arumuga Nainar Trust. They had leased out the suit

property to the defendants under a registered lease agreement dated 30.03.2007.

The recital of the lease deed shows that the plaintiffs have leased out the suit

2/33

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

S.A.(MD) No.510 of 2023

property to the defendants in their individual capacity and not as trustees of the

plaintiffs' Trust. The plaintiffs filed Trust O.P.No.2 of 2009 on the file of the

Principal District Court, Madurai, as trustees of Thirupparankundram Arumuga

Nainar Trust seeking permission to sell the suit property in favour of the first

defendant, S.Bhawarlal, his wife, B.Kamaladevi and his son, S.B.Rajkuar. The

petition was allowed on 04.08.2010 directing sale price to be deposited within a

period of two months. The two months period expired on 04.10.2010. The sale

price was not deposited within the time fixed by the Court. Therefore, the

plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1038 of 2012 for cancelling the order passed in Trust

O.P.No.2 of 2009.

4.After contest, the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, allowed

the petition and cancelled the order passed in Trust O.P.No.2 of 2009 on

04.08.2010. One third party, R.Gopalakrishnan, filed CRP.(MD) No.398 of 2011

before this Court challenging the order passed in Trust O.P.No.2 of 2009. This

Court, while disposing of CRP(MD) No.398 of 2011, held that without making

any public notice and without giving any opportunity to third parties, who are

willing to purchase the properties, without mentioning the private negotiation

entered into between the trustees with the first defendant, his wife and his son the

proposed sale is not legal and thus, set aside the order passed by the learned

Principal District Judge, Madurai, in Trust O.P.No.2 of 2009. It was finally

3/33

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

S.A.(MD) No.510 of 2023

decided by this Court that whatever transactions the plaintiffs had with the first

defendant, his wife and his son are all invalid under law.

5.The lease deed dated 30.