Dismissed

Margandeyan v. the Prenambut Muslim

Madras HC7 Nov 2019CRP/3598/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two civil revision petitions were filed against an interim order staying a civil decree subject to the deposit of rental arrears. The court rejected the petitions, directing deposit under the condition that the money would not be withdrawn by the plaintiff and would not prejudice the petitioners' rights to claim the property is Government land.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to deposit arrears within 30 days; plaintiff prohibited from withdrawing the deposit until final appeal decision.

Margandeyan Vs the Prenambut Muslim — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.3598 & 3600 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.11.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.Nos.3598 and 3600 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.23607 & 23611 of 2019

¶7

Margandeyan ... Petitioner in C.R.P.3598/2019
D.M.Krishnan ... Petitioner in C.R.P.3600/2019
-Vs-

¶8

1.The Pernambut Muslim Educational Society rep.by its General Secretary having office at Chowk Road, Pernambut, Vellore District.

¶9

2.The District Collector Vellore District, C.P.Chitrarasu Maaligai Sathuvachari, Vellore.

¶10

3.The Tahsildar,
Pernambut Taluk, Pernambut
Vellore District. ... Respondents in both C.R.Ps.

¶11

Prayer in CRP 3598/2019 : Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C., against the fair and decreetal order dated 20.08.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in A.S.No.26/2007 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.

¶12

Prayer in CRP 3600/2019 : Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C., against the fair and decreetal order dated 20.08.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in A.S.No.29/2007 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.

¶13

For Petitioners in both CRPs : Mr.S.Parthasarathy

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.3598 & 3600 of 2019

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

These revision petitions have been filed by the respective revision petitioners, as against the fair and decreetal order dated 20.08.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in A.S.No.26 of 2007 and in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in A.S.No.29/2007 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, Vellore District. The respondents in both the civil revision petitions are one and the same.

¶19

Before the trial Court, the first respondent / plaintiff filed the respective suits for eviction against the revision petitioners / defendants, which were decreed, as against the decrees, the defendants filed the Appeal Suits, where they filed the present application to stay the operation of the decree.

¶20

While passing the impugned order dated 20.08.2019 in both the

¶21

applications, the first appellate Court, though allowed the said interlocutory applications by granting interim order of stay of operation of the trial Court decree, imposed a condition, directing the revision petitioners / defendants, who were the appellants before the first appellate Court, to deposit the entire alleged rental arrears. Aggrieved over the said condition imposed by the first appellate Court, these revisions have been filed.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that, the rental arrears comes to about Rs.35,000/- in each case. If that being so, depositing

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.3598 & 3600 of 2019

¶26

of such amount cannot be a big question to the revision petitioners. However, the very property in question itself is a Government Poramboke land therefore, the question of claiming any rent from the revision petitioners does not arise and once that issue is decided by the first appellate Court, the present condition directing the revision petitioners / defendants to deposit the rental arrears becomes otiose.

¶27

However, the learned counsel would also submit that, by accepting the

¶28

said conditional order, if the alleged rental arrears is deposited, that would be construed by the first respondent / plaintiff that they are the owner of the property and under whom these revision petitioners / defendants were tenants and there had been rental arrears and in such circumstances, that will cause great prejudice to the rights of the revision petitioners, which has to be finally decided only by the first appellate Court in the respective appeals. On these two reasons, the said conditional order passed by the Court below is assailed in these revisions.

¶29

I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel for

¶30

the petitioners and have considered the materials placed before this Court.

¶31

The only grievance of the revision petitioners seems to be, if the rental arrears is paid, for which, since according to them the first respondent / plaintiff is not entitled, they can take advantage of the situation. If that is the only

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶33

Page 3 of 5

¶34

C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.3598 & 3600 of 2019

¶35

apprehension on the part of the revision petitioners, that position can very well be clarified by this Court.

¶36

Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are rejected with the following observations.

¶37

(a) That the revision petitioners can deposit the rental arrears as directed by the first appellate Court as a condition precedent by the respective impugned orders, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

(b) It is made clear that by such deposit, the revision petitioners shall not be put to any disadvantageous position to agitate their rights before the first appellate Court on the alleged ground that the property itself is a Government Poramboke for which the first respondent / plaintiff cannot claim any right.

¶39

(c) Further, it is made clear that, if the rental arrears, as directed by the first appellate Court as a condition precedent, is deposited, the same shall be kept in the said account only until the final decision of the Appeal Suits is made and under any circumstances, the first respondent / plaintiff shall not be permitted to withdraw the same.

¶40

With the above observations, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.

¶41

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

¶42

07-11-2019

¶43

Index : Yes Internet : Yes KST

¶44

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶45

Page 4 of 5

¶46

C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.3598 & 3600 of 2019

¶47

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶48

KST

¶49

¶50

The Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.

¶51

C.R.P. (NPD)Nos.3598
and 3600 of 2019

¶52

07.11.2019

¶53

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶54

Page 5 of 5

Margandeyan v. the Prenambut Muslim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Margandeyan v. the Prenambut Muslim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Kavitha Vs a.Sathyanarayanan

Marie Antone Moselle Vs Rosyane

M/S.Atc Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs R.Muthukrishnan

S.Siluvai Michael Vs S.Tamilselvi

Kanniyammal Vs a.Krishnan

M/S.Telace Industrial Services Vs Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board