Disposed

V.Ramalingam v. K.S.Sundaram

Madras HC4 Nov 2020CMP/9325/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the filing of an affidavit of undertaking by the first respondent safeguarded the appellants' interest. Consequently, the Court did not grant interim attachment but directed the respondents not to alienate or encumber the specified immovable properties until the appeal's disposal. Both miscellaneous petitions were disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents not to alienate, encumber, deal, part with possession, or alter the physical features of the properties until disposal of the appeal.

V.Ramalingam Vs K.S.Sundaram — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CMP.Nos.9325 & 9326 of 2020

¶2

CMP.Nos.9325 & 9326 of 2020 in OSA.No.182 of 2020

¶3

T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J

¶4

COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J)

¶5

These petitions have been filed (i) to pass an order of interim attachment of the immovable properties belonging to the respondents/ defendants more fully described in the schedule and (ii) to direct the respondents/defendants to deposit the original title deeds pertaining to the properties in question.

¶6

In terms of the directions issued earlier i.e. on 09.9.2020, the

¶7

first respondent/first defendant, on his own behalf and also on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, filed an affidavit of undertaking to the following effect :

¶8

“I, K.S.Sundaram, the first respondent

¶9

herein, for myself and on behalf of the second and third respondents, in my capacity as Director and Authorized Signatory, hereby solemnly undertake not to alienate or encumber, deal or part with possession or alter the physical features of the property namely all the piece and parcel of agricultural land situated in Kariamanickam Village, comprising cadastre Nos.296/1, 296/2, 297 1/11, 297 2/11, 297 3/11, 297 4/11, 297 5/11, 297

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

CMP.Nos.9325 & 9326 of 2020

¶12

T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J

¶13

RS 6/11, 297 7/11, 297 8/11, 297 9/11, 297 10/11, 297 11/11 in resurvey No.69/1 measuring an extent of 1 Kani or 54 ares pending disposal of the above CMP.Nos.9325 and 9326 of 2020.”

¶14

In the light of the above affidavit of undertaking, this Court is

¶15

of the considered view that interest of the appellants/plaintiffs is sufficiently safeguarded and by placing on record the affidavit of undertaking, there will be a direction to the respondents/defendants not to alienate or encumber or deal or part with possession or alter the physical features of the properties in question till the disposal of the appeal.

¶16

The above miscellaneous petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶17

04.11.2020

¶18

CMP.Nos.9325 & 9326 of 2020 in OSA.No.182 of 2020

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

V.Ramalingam v. K.S.Sundaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Ramalingam v. K.S.Sundaram

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

M/S.Nlc Employees Co-Op Thrift Vs Income Tax Officer

M/S. Sooraj Leathers Vs the Income Tax Officer

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Css Corpn Pvt. Ltd.

M/S.Sundaram Fasteners Vs the Assistant Commissiioner of

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.

Spr Builders, NO.57 Narayana Vs the Income Tax Officer