Dismissed

K.Mohamed Sidhik v. T.P.Kesavan & 3 Others

Madras HC2 Apr 2014CS/688/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a National Lok Adalat settlement for Civil Suit No.688 of 2010 regarding specific performance of a sale agreement, the parties negotiated and reached a compromise. The Court observed that the defendants had already executed the sale deed. Consequently, the Civil Suit was dismissed as settled out of Court, and half of the court fees were to be refunded.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Suit was dismissed as settled out of Court. Connected Special Mediation Petition was also dismissed. Half of the court fees to be refunded.

K.Mohamed Sidhik Vs T.P.Kesavan & 3 Others — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, CHENNAI National Lok Adalat organised by the High Court Legal Services Committee Saturday, the 14th Day of July, 2018

¶2

NATIONAL LOK ADALAT AWARD

¶3

(Chapter VI and u/s 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987)

¶4

Presided over by

¶5

The Hon'ble Dr.JUSTICE S. VIMALA and

¶6

Members

¶7

Mr. R.Jeyaratchakan Mr. V.T.Balaji

¶8

Civil Suit filed under Order IV, Rule 1 of the O.S.Rules read with Order VII, Rule 1 of the CPC, for the judgement and decree: (i) directing the defendants specifically to perform their part of the contract as per the agreement dated 22.08.2009 and execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff; and (ii) direct the defendants to put the plaintiff in possession of the portion occupied by the defendants in the suit property; and (iii) cost of the suit.

¶9

Mr. K.Mohamed Sidhik

¶10

No.3/5, Periyanna Street,

¶11

Seven Wells, Chennai-600 001.

¶12

Ivy Dorothy (deceased)

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

all are residing at

¶16

NO.18, Varadier Street, Opposite Crown Theatre, Seven Wells, Chennai-600 001.

¶17

4.Roopa

¶18

(D-4 impleaded as legal heir of the deceased D-3, as per the order dated 14.12.2016 in Appln. No.5719/15)

¶19

NO.18, Varadier Street,

¶20

Opposite Crown Theatre, Seven Wells, Chennai-600 001.

¶21

... Defendants

¶22

This Civil Suit came up for settlement before the National Lok Adalat. Both the Parties are present. Mr.J.Abdul Hadi, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. A.Muniraj, learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 are present. After mutual discussion, negotiation, mediation and conciliation between both parties, they arrived at a compromise to settle the matter as follows:

¶23

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

¶24

This Civil Suit has been filed by the plaintiff for specific performance seeking a direction to the defendants to perform their part of the agreement dated 22.08.2009 and to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

Both the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are

¶28

present, along with their respective counsels.

¶29

It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants that the defendants 1 and 2 have executed the sale deed on 13.07.2018 in Document No.911/2018 before the Sub Registrar's Office, Sowcarpet, Chennai, in favour of the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the plaintiff reported that the value of the property is Rs.1,20,00,000/-

¶30

It is represented by both sides that the matter has been settled out of Court.

¶31

As the sale deed have been executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff, there is no further claim between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. Hence, this Civil Suit is dismissed as settled out of Court. Consequently, the connected MP, if any, is also dismissed.

¶32

Mr. K.Mohamed Sidhik

¶33

... Counsel for the Plaintiff

¶34

T.P.Kesavan

¶35

T.K.Mahalakshmi

¶36

Ivy Dorothy (deceased)

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

4. Roopa

¶40

(D-4 impleaded as legal heir of the deceased D-3, as per the order dated 14.12.2016 in Appln. No.5719/15)

¶41

... Counsel for the Defendants

¶42

This Lok Adalat Award is passed in terms of the above settlement. The half of the Court Fees paid shall be refunded to the parties in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 as provided for under sub Sec.1 of Section 21 r/w 25 of LSA Act 1987 as amended in 1994.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Sd/Sd/MEMBERS MEMBERS

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

Assistant Registrar(LA) // The Certified to be true copy //

¶47

Sub-Assistant Registrar(OS)

¶48

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

¶49

¶50

¶51

The parties/Advocate concerned (through Lok Adalat)

¶52

Copy to:

¶53

1.The Secretary,

¶54

High Court Legal Services Committee, Chennai.

¶55

2.The Section Officer, Lok Adalat Section,

¶56

High Court, Madras.

¶57

2.The Section Officer,

¶58

Original Side,

¶59

High Court, Madras.

¶60

Civil Suit No.688 of 2010

¶61

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

K.Mohamed Sidhik v. T.P.Kesavan & 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Mohamed Sidhik v. T.P.Kesavan & 3 Others

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

S.Deepam Vs Shanthi Ravindran

M/S. Calpana Service Station, Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax

M/S.Sri Rajeswari Agencies Vs the Addl. Deputy Commercial

J.S.Vasudevan Vs R.Murari and Another

Serum Institure of India Vs Orchid Chemiclas and

K.Lalli Vs S.Pappi and 5 Others