Disposed

N.P.Moorthy v. Karanam Venkata Subbaiah

Madras HC14 Jul 2014CMA/426/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the grant of interim injunction in a specific performance suit. The court directed the trial court to take up the main suit for trial and dispose of it within three months, allowing the interim injunction to remain effective till then.

What did the court decide?

Appellant disallowed; Trial court directed to take up main suit for trial within three months; Interim injunction continued.

N.P.Moorthy Vs Karanam Venkata Subbaiah — Property and Title | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 14.07.2014

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice R.SUBBIAH

C.M.A.No.426 of 2014

and

M.P.No.1 of 2014

1.N.P.Moorthy

2.N.P.Mohan ... Appellants

¶10

..vs..

¶11

1.Karanam Venkata Subbaiah

¶12

2.Rupineni Ramanaiah

¶13

3.Tumati Vekataiah

¶14

4.P.R.L.Thangavel Chettiar

¶15

5.P.R.L.Gopalakrishna Chettiar

¶16

6.Srinivasan @ Ega Raghav Chettiar

¶17

7.Babu @ Jalappa Naidu

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC, against the order dated 06.11.2013 passed in I.A.No.38 of 2012 in O.S.No.2 of 2011 on the file of the Learned IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Ranipet.

¶20

For Appellants : Mr.S.Hemelatha

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.V.N.Shanthi (For R1 to R3)

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The present appeal has been filed as against the order dated 06.11.2013 made in I.A.No.38 of 2012 in O.S.No.2 of 2011 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Ranipet, granting interim injunction restraining the appellants & 7^th respondent herein, who are the defendants 4 to 6 respectively in the suit, from alienating the suit property in favour of any third party till the disposal of the main suit.

¶24

2.The respondents 1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs and the appellants herein are the defendants 4 & 5 and respondents 4 to 7 herein are the defendants 1, 2, 3 & 6 respectively, before the trial Court.

¶25

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

4.It is the case of the plaintiffs before the trial Court that on 18.08.2004, they have entered into an agreement of sale with the defendants 1 to 3 for purchasing the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.51,80,500/- and paid an earnest money of Rs.20 lakhs to the defendants 1 to 3. But, subsequently, the defendants 1 to 3 have not come forward to execute the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for specific performance.

¶28

5.Originally, the plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.96 of 2009 before the District Court, Vellore, as against the defendants, for the following reliefs_

¶29

(a)directing the defendants Nos.1 to 3 to execute a registered sale deed after receiving the balance of sale consideration from the plaintiffs along with the defendant Nos.4 & 5 or through process of court and deliver possession of the properties to the plaintiffs;

¶30

(b)in the alternative, directing Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 6 to refund the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- together with interest at 18% per annum, to the plaintiffs as per clause 10 of the agreement;

¶31

(c)granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property or in anyway meddling with the same in any manner whatsoever pending this suit;

¶32

(d)award suit costs;

¶33

In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an Interlocutory application in I.A.No.151 of 2009 seeking for an interim injunction restraining the defendants from in any way alienating the suit property. While so, the suit was transferred to the file of learned II Additional District Judge, Ranipet, and the suit was renumbered as O.S.No.2 of 2011 and the interlocutory application viz., I.A.No.151 of 2009 was closed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs again filed I.A.No.38 of 2012 before the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranipet, seeking for interim injunction restraining the defendants 4 to 6, their men and agents from alienating the suit properties in favour of any third party till the disposal of the suit. In this said application, an interim injunction was granted by the Court below against the defendants 4 to 6. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants 4 & 5/appellants herein, who are the subsequent purchasers of the suit property, have filed the present appeal.

¶34

6.Now, the learned counsel for the appellants/D4 & D5 submitted that the defendants 4 & 5 have purchased the suit property from the defendants 1 to 3. Originally, the defendants 1 to 3 herein have filed a Trust O.P.No.1 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Vellore, seeking for permission to sell the trust properties and the District Court has also granted permission to sell the trust properties, by way of the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2009 made

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

in Trust O.P.No.1 of 2007. Subsequently, the defendants 4 & 5 have purchased the suit property from the defendants 1 to 3 vide the registered Sale Deed dated 01.09.2008 for a valid consideration and from the date of purchase, the defendants 4 & 5 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and patta for the same is also transferred in their name. Now, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for specific performance based on a sale agreement said to have been entered into by them with the defendants 1 to 3 in the year 2004. But, the suit was filed by them only in the year 2009 and as such, the suit is barred by limitation. In fact, originally the plaintiffs had filed I.A.No.151 of 2009 seeking for interim injunction, but when the suit was transferred to the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Ranipet, the said application was closed. But, again for the same relief, the plaintiffs have filed the application in I.A.No.38 of 2012 and obtained the order of interim injunction. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants/D4 & D5 that when the application filed by the plaintiffs was closed, for the same relief the plaintiffs cannot again file another application. Therefore, the interim injunction granted by the Court below is liable to be vacated.

¶37

7.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 herein/plaintiffs submitted that the earlier application in I.A.No.151 of 2009 was not disposed of on merits and on the other hand, when the suit was transferred to the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Ranipet, the said application was closed. Therefore, it cannot be an impediment for filing another application by the plaintiffs seeking for interim injunction. Further, if the interim injunction is vacated, the plaintiffs would be put to irrepairable loss and hardship. Thus, the plaintiffs opposed the present appeal.

¶38

8.Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶39

9.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, without going into the merits and demerits of the submissions made on either side, it would be appropriate to direct the Court below to take up the main suit itself for trial and dispose of the same within a time frame.

¶40

10.Accordingly, the Court below is directed to take up the suit in O.S.No.2 of 2011 for trial and to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the interim injunction granted by the Court below shall continue.

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶42

With the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶43

Sd/-
Asst. Registrar(CS III)
Dt.11/08/14
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar.
ssv
Copy to
The XI Additional District Judge-II,
Ranipet,Vellore District.
+1cc to Mrs.S. Hemalatha ,Advocate SR.No.8957
+2ccs to Mrs.V.N.Santhi , Advocate SR.No.30565
EV(CO)
ka 11/08
C.M.A.No.426 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
14.07.2014

¶44

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

N.P.Moorthy v. Karanam Venkata Subbaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.P.Moorthy v. Karanam Venkata Subbaiah

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

The Divisional Manager Vs v.Kanageshwari

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Minor H.Ashish

Siva Vs M. Selvi

M/S Bajaj Allianz General Vs Baby

M/S Shriram General Vs N.Manoharan

Suba @ Kalaivani Vs J.Nirmal Babu