Disposed

Sarojammal v. S.Gopisrinivasalu

Madras HC12 Nov 2013CRP/4410/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two Civil Revision Petitions challenging orders under Article 227 regarding specific performance and execution proceedings. Finding that the judgment debtor had vacated the premises and the decree holder was ready to take possession, the Court held no purpose would be served by keeping the petitions alive and closed them. Connected miscellaneous petitions were also close

What did the court decide?

The two Civil Revision Petitions and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed without any costs.

Sarojammal Vs S.Gopisrinivasalu — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATE: 12.11.2013

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. MATHIVANAN

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4410 & 4411 of 2012 And M.P.Nos. 1 & 1 of 2012

¶7

C.R.P.(NPD).No. 4410 of 2012

¶8

Sarojammal ... Petitioner/Judgment Debtor/Defendant

¶9

Versus

¶10

S.Gopisrinivasalu

¶11

... Respondent/Decree Holder/Plaintiff

¶12

Prayer: Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed in E.P.No. 2 of 2012 in O.S.No. 85 of 2007 dated 04.09.2012 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Chengalpattu.

¶13

C.R.P.(NPD).No. 4411 of 2012

¶14

Sarojammal ... Petitioner/Respondent -JD/Defendant

¶15

Versus

¶16

S.Gopisrinivasalu

¶17

... Respondent/Petitioner -DH/Plaintiff

¶18

Prayer: Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed in E.P.No. 2 of 2012 in O.S.No. 85 of 2007 dated 06.11.2012 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Chengalpattu.

¶19

¶20

For Petitioner in both petitions : Mr.S.Kanniah

¶21

For Respondent in both petitions : Mr.S.Ramesh

¶22

COMMON ORDER

¶23

The petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions

¶24

¶25

is the Judgment Debtor and the defendant in the suit in O.S.No. 85 of 2007; whereas the respondent is the Decree Holder and the plaintiff.

¶26

The respondent/Decree Holder has filed a suit in O.S.No. 85 of 2007 as against the revision petitioner / Judgement Debtor on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, seeking the relief of specific performance directing the revision petitioner / Judgement Debtor to execute and register a sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit lands and put him in possession thereof and also for permanent injunction.

¶27

The suit was resisted by the revision petitioner/Judgement Debtor by filing her written statement. After full pledged trial, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent/Decree Holder on 30.01.2012 directing the revision petitioner/Judgment

¶28

Debtor to execute the sale deed in favour of the

¶29

plaintiff in respect of the suit properties and the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor was also directed to deliver the possession of the suit properties and in consequence thereof, the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor, her men, agents were restrained by way of permanent injunction from creating any encumbrance upon the suit property. Three months time was granted to execute the sale deed.

¶30

¶31

Since the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor had failed to comply with the direction of the Court within the stipulated period of three months, the respondent/Decree Holder had put the decree on execution on 12.05.2012 under Order 21 Rule 32 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure. Even after crossing of several hearings, the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor had not chosen to file her counter statement and ultimately, the execution petition in E.P.No. 2 of 2012 stood posted on 04.09.2012 under the caption for counter and disposal. On that day also, the revision

¶32

petitioner/Judgment Debtor had failed to file her counter statement. In this connection, the Court has passed an order on 04.09.2012 as under:-

¶33

“Sufficient time given. Counter

¶34

not filed. No records have been produced in the Court to show that appeal has been filed and pending against the Judgment and Decree passed by this Court. Hence, the draft sale deed by 18.09.2012.”

¶35

On perusal of the records, it is revealed that

¶36

the draft sale deed was produced on 01.10.2012 and the Court at first instance had directed the Registrar of his Office to Check and call on 03.10.2012. On 03.10.2012, the draft sale deed was verified and for production of fair sale deed, the execution petition was adjourned to

¶37

¶38

05.10.2012. On that day, the fair sale deed was produced and subsequently for check and call on, it was adjourned to 08.10.2012. On 08.10.2012, the fair sale deed was verified.

¶39

As it appears from the records, the sale deed was registered on 12.10.2012 and for the production of sale deed, the execution petition was adjourned to 02.12.2012. The records further reveal that the execution petition in E.P.No. 2 of 2012 stood posted on 06.11.2012 for the production of sale deed. On that day, the xerox copy of the sale deed was produced. Therefore, the Execution Petition was adjourned to 30.11.2012 for delivery of possession.

¶40

The order dated 04.09.2012 directing the Decree Holder to produce the draft sale deed by 18.09.2012 has been challenged in C.R.P.No. 4410 of 2012; Whereas the order dated 06.11.2012 with reference to delivery of possession of the suit property by 30.11.2012 has been challenged in C.R.P.No. 4411 of 2012.

¶41

It is apparent from the records that challenging the Judgement and Decree dated 30.01.2012 and made in O.S.No. 85 of 2007, the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor had filed an appeal in A.S.No. 10 of 2003 before this Court and along with that appeal, she had also filed two petitions in M.P.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2012. M.P.No. 1 of

¶42

¶43

2012 is for granting of an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent/Decree Holder, his men, agents and successors in interest from in any manner alienating, encumbering or altering the nature of the schedule mentioned suit properties subject matter of O.S.No. 85 of 2007 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.1, Chengalpattu. Another petition in M.P.No. 2 of 2012 is for granting interim injunction restraining the respondent his servants, men, agents and successors in interest from in any manner interfering with the revision petitioner/Judgement Debtor's peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule mentioned properties pending disposal of the Appeal in A.S.No. 1023 of 2012. These two petitions came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court headed by Mrs.Justice Chitra Venkataraman on 18.01.2013.

¶44

From paragraph No. 2 of the order dated 18.01.2013 of the Division Bench of this Court, it is revealed that in the execution petition, the Decree Holder was directed by the Court to deposit the entire sale consideration as per the agreement. Accordingly, the sale deed was also executed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Admittedly, the appellant herein (Judgment Debtor) remained ex-parte throughout the business before the Execution Court. Only at the stage of taking of possession the appellant/petitioner has got an order of injunction from this Court.

¶45

¶46

In paragraph No. 3 of the said order, reference with regard to the pendency of these Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P.Nos. 4410 and 4411 of 2012 has been made.

¶47

In paragraph No. 4 the Division Bench has observed as under:-

¶48

“Whatever be the merits of the claim of the appellant/petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition, considering the fact that the plaintiff/respondent had already parted with the money and an order had also been passed in the Execution proceedings recording the sale in his favour, we find that prima facie case is made out by the plaintiff/respondent herein to vacate the injunction and directing the petitioner to hand over the suit property to the respondent herein, so that pending consideration of the appeal, the respondent shall put the suit property for gainful purposes. The respondent/plaintiff undertakes to file statement of accounts before this Court once in six months on the receipts made through agricultural operation carried on in the suit agricultural properties.”

¶49

¶50

In paragraph No. 5 also, the Division Bench has observed as under:-

¶51

“Recording the undertaking, the petitioner/appellant is hereby directed to hand over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff/respondent so as to enable him to cultivate the land in question. The order passed herein is, however, subject to the result of the appeal before us.”

¶52

Challenging the order of the Division Bench

¶53

dated 08.01.2013 and made in M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2012 in A.S.No. 1023 of 2012, the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor seems to have prefer an SLP (Civil ) No. 12964 of 2013 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. That SLP was dismissed by the Apex Court with an observation that we find no ground to entertain this SLP which is accordingly dismissed. In pursuant to the order dated 01.07.2013 and made in the above said SLP, a letter dated 24.07.2013 was issued by the learned counsel for the Judgment Debtor to the learned counsel for the Decree Holder saying that the Judgment Debtor was ready and willing to deliver vacant possession of the suit properties to the Decree Holder on prior written intimation.

¶54

Similarly, the learned counsel appearing for

¶55

¶56

the respondent/Decree Holder has also issued a reply dated 30.07.2013 to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor expressing his readiness to take possession of the suit schedule properties from the Judgment Debtor on 5^th August 2013 at about 3 pm and the learned counsel was also requested to indicate the convenience of the Judgment Debtor.

¶57

Now it appears that the appeal in A.S.No. 1023 of 2012 is pending disposal. Peaceful possession of the suit property was also handed over to the respondent/decree holder.

¶58

Under these circumstances, this Court finds that no purpose is going to be saved in keeping alive of these two petitions in C.R.P.Nos. 4410 and 4411 of 2012.

¶59

Keeping in view of the above fact, these two Civil Revision Petitions are closed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. No costs.

¶60

Vsg 12.11.2013 Index:Yes/No. Internet:Yes/No.

¶61

¶62

Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Chengalpattu.

¶63

¶64

T. MATHIVANAN, J.

¶65

vsg

¶66

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4410 & 4411 of 2012

¶67

12.11.2013

Sarojammal v. S.Gopisrinivasalu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarojammal v. S.Gopisrinivasalu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Rajendran Vs M Chinnappan

Vs

Vijayalakshmi Vs a. Govindasamy

Kuppusamy Vs K Murugasamy

G. Sritharan Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Trans Globe Shipping Co. Vs Karnataka Electricity Board