Disposed

T.S. Narayanan v. Revathy M and 2 Others

Madras HC20 Jan 2020A/3781/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application challenging entitlement to unpaid rent where the underlying property title is disputed in an ancillary suit, the Single Judge, citing possible mediation settlement, directed the third respondent to pay one-third share of rent to the second respondent pending suit disposal. Other shares remain in limbo.

What did the court decide?

Direct third respondent to pay one-third of rental arrears from July 2018 and future rent to second respondent pending suit disposal.

T.S. Narayanan Vs Revathy M and 2 Others — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

A.No.3781 of 2019 in C.S.No.186 of 2019

¶2

A.No.3781 of 2019 in C.S.No.186 of 2019

¶3

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J

¶4

This application is filed to direct the third respondent to pay the unpaid

¶5

rent/use and occupation charges retained by it as on date jointly to the

¶6

applicant/plaintiff and the second respondent/second defendant subject to

¶7

the result of the suit.

¶8

I heard the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, for the

¶9

applicant/plaintiff and the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.S.Parthasarathy, for the first respondent.

¶10

The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that there is

¶11

no dispute whatsoever with regard to the 50% entitlement of the second respondent/second defendant as regards the rent payable by the third respondent. Therefore, he submits that the present application is taken out so as to enable the second respondent to receive 50% of the rental dues from the

¶12

third respondent. In this connection, he referred to a note wherein the

¶13

1 / 5

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

A.No.3781 of 2019 in C.S.No.186 of 2019

¶16

relevant details are set out. In particular, he pointed out that a sum of Rs.3,08,432/- is payable excluding service tax by way of rent for the property in question. This sum was paid to the plaintiff's son viz., late T.N.Subramaniam, up to July 2018. After July 2018, no rent was paid to the

¶17

second respondent.

¶18

On the other hand, one half of the rent for the period from September 2018 to March 2019 was paid to the first respondent. As regards the period commencing from March 2019, 1/3^rd of the rent was paid to the first respondent whereas the second respondent did not receive any amount by way of rent.

¶19

After referring to the above mentioned admitted factual position, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the second respondent is entitled to 50% of the said rental arrears because the first respondent has admitted the entitlement of the second respondent to the said 50%. As regards the first respondent, he submitted that the entitlement of the first respondent is the subject matter of the suit and that, therefore, it is a disputed entitlement. As

¶20

an interim arrangement by way of consent order, he submitted that the first respondent was permitted to receive 1/3^rd of the rent.

¶21

2 / 5

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

A.No.3781 of 2019 in C.S.No.186 of 2019

¶24

On the above basis, he submitted that the first respondent cannot

¶25

have any objection for the payment of 50% of the rent to the second respondent.

¶26

In reply, the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent is also entitled to 50% of the rent on the basis of the settlement deed executed by her late husband. Therefore, he submits that the second respondent should not be paid 50% because the second

¶27

respondent also claims the said 50% by virtue of the settlement deed.

¶28

I considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the

¶29

respective parties and also examined the relevant records.

¶30

On perusal of the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiff has prayed for setting aside the registered settlement deed dated 09.02.2017 and for consequential orders, such as delivery of possession and payment of damages.

¶31

Therefore, it is clear that the settlement deed, by virtue of which both the first and second respondents claim rights of inheritance by intestate succession

¶32

in respect of the property in question, is under challenge at the instance of the plaintiff. If the said settlement deed is held to be valid by rejecting the suit,

¶33

3 / 5

¶34

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶35

A.No.3781 of 2019 in C.S.No.186 of 2019

¶36

both the respondents 1 and 2 would be entitled to 50% each of the property and its usufruct. On the other hand, if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, neither the first nor the second defendant would be entitled. It is a different matter that the plaintiff may make arrangement to pay the second defendant from and out of his entitlement in such event. However, it does not change the legal position that the entitlement of both the defendants flows from the

¶37

settlement deed.

¶38

In view of the above position, I am of the view that for interlocutory purposes, the interest of justice would be served if both the first and second defendants, who admittedly trace their title to the property and usufruct from and out of the registered settlement deed dated 09.02.2017 are paid 1/3^rd pending disposal of the suit. I am also informed that the mediation proceedings are underway and it is possible that the dispute may be settled. Keeping all these factors in mind, I dispose of this application by directing the third respondent to pay 1/3^rd of the rental arrears for the period from July 2018 till date and 1/3^rd of the rent for future months to the second respondent pending disposal of the suit.

kal

20.01.2020

4 / 5

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶43

A.No.3781 of 2019 in C.S.No.186 of 2019

¶44

kal

¶45

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J

¶46

A.No.3781 of 2019
in
C.S.No.186 of 2019
20.01.2020

¶47

5 / 5

¶48

http://www.judis.nic.in

T.S. Narayanan v. Revathy M and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.S. Narayanan v. Revathy M and 2 Others

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

Will of N.R.Kutchala Bai Vs G.Harikrishnan

Vikramjit Singh Oberoi Vs The Registrar of Companies

Mr.a.Shanmugam Vs Mr.N.Sekar

Mr.N.S.Balachandhar and Another Vs the Honorary Secretary and 11 Others

Rajmal Jain Vs No Respondent

S.Viswanathan Vs No Respondent