Allowed

K.M.Ramesh and another v. S.Sampath Kumar and 10 others

Madras HC23 Feb 2021A/580/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application by judgment debtors to determine the executability of a decree. The court dismissed the execution petition after finding that the suit schedule property was misdescribed and the decree holder failed to clarify the discrepancy.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; execution petition dismissed on grounds of misdescription of suit schedule property and failure of decree holder to clarify.

K.M.Ramesh and another Vs S.Sampath Kumar and 10 others — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶5

THE MASTER

¶6

A.No.580 of 2020 in E.P.No.30 of 2019 in C.S.No.1058 of 2009

¶7

S.Sampath Kumar S.Baby (a) Chitra Rep. by their Power of Attorney Agent, P.V.S.Vijayaraj residing at No.5/2, Nagappan Street, Jaffarkhanpet, Chennai-600 083.

¶8

..Decree Holders/Plaintiffs

¶9

Versus

¶10

1.S.Sendhil Kumar, S/o.S.Selvaraj

¶11

2.S.Anusha, W/o.Sendhil Kumar, Defendants 1 & 2 residing at Old No.46, New No.16, MMDA Colony, Arumbakkam, Chennai.

¶12

3.P.Chandrasekaran, S/o.Pattani, residing at No.6, Pillayar Koil East West Street, Pulliampatti, Aruppukottai-626 101.

¶13

¶14

4.J.Selvakumar, S/o.K.Jayaraman, residing at No.104, “Sruthi”, Block No.9, Choolaimedu High Road, Choolaimedu, Chennai-600 094. 5.P.Sreekanth, S/o.P.Kumar Babu,

¶15

6.N.Manju Devi, W/o.P.Sreekanth, Defendants 5 & 6 residing at No.36-H, North Parade Road, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai-600 016.

¶16

7.C.Sriganesh, S/o.Chandrasekaran, residing at No.39, Balaji Nagar, First Street, Keelkattalai, Chennai-600 117.

¶17

8.R.Vinu, S/o.G.Ramasamy, residing at No.S-2, Swathi Sudnaram Apartments, Collectors Office Road, Trichy-1.

¶18

9.K.M.Ramesh, S/o.K.M.Mahadevan,

¶19

10.R.Sudha Ramesh, W/o.K.M.Ramesh, Defendants 9 & 10 residing at15/6-B, Oceano, New Beach Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041.

¶20

11.N.Murugesan Naicker, S/o.Natesan Naicker, residing at No.11, Third Street, Bhuvaneswari Nagar, Velachery, Chennai-600 041.

¶21

..Judgement Debtors/Defendants

¶22

¶23

A.No.580 of 2020:

¶24

1.K.M.Ramesh, S/o.K.M.Mahadevan,

¶25

2.R.Sudha Ramesh, Applicants/Defendants 9 & 10 residing at 5/6-B, Oceano, New Beach Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041.

¶26

..Applicant/Judgement Debtors 9 & 10/ Defendants 9 & 10

¶27

¶28

1.S.Sampath Kumar 2.S.Baby (a) Chitra Rep. by their Power of Attorney Agent, P.V.S.Vijayaraj residing at No.5/2, Nagappan Street, Jaffarkhanpet, Chennai-600 083.

¶29

..Respondents/Decree Holders/Plaintiffs

¶30

3.S.Sendhil Kumar,

¶31

4.S.Anusha, (3 & 4) both are residing at Old No.46, New No.16, MMDA Colony, Arumbakkam, Chennai.

¶32

5.P.Chandrasekaran, No.6, Pillayar Koil East West Street, Pulliampatti, Aruppukottai-626 101.

¶33

6.J.Selvakumar, No.104, “Sruthi”, Block No.9, Choolaimedu High Road, Choolaimedu, Chennai-600 094.

¶34

¶35

7.P.Sreekanth,

¶36

8.N.Manju Devi, (7 & 8) both are residing at No.36-H, North Parade Road, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai-600 016.

¶37

9.C.Sriganesh, No.39, Balaji Nagar, First Street, Keelkattalai, Chennai-600 117.

¶38

10.R.Vinu, No.S-2, Swathi Sudnaram Apartments, Collectors Office Road, Trichy-1.

¶39

11.Mr.Murugesan Naicker, No.11, Third Street, Bhuvaneswari Nagar, Velachery, Chennai-600 041. ..Respondents 3 to 11/ Judgment Debtors 3 to 11 / Defendants 1 to 8 & 11

¶40

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order to determine the executability of the Decree;

¶41

This application has been filed by the Applicants/Judgment Debtors 9 and 10/Defendants 9 and 10 to determine the executability of the decree passed in C.S.No.1058 of 2009 and allow this application. It is the contention of the Applicants/Judgment Debtors 9 and 10/Defendants 9 and 10 that the Respondents/Decree Holders/Plaintiffs have filed a suit against several Defendants including these applicants seeking to declare that the Plaintiff are the absolute owner of the schedule A and B properties and for delivery of possession after removal of construction put up by the

¶42

¶43

Defendants and restraining the Defendants by decree of permanent injunction. The suit schedule property which has been mentioned in the plaint is as follows:-

¶44

SCHEDULE A

¶45

All that piece and parcel of the land and building bearing plot No.10, in “BHUVANESWARI NAGAR”, comprised in Survey No.317/1, Patta No.3059, as per Patta New Survey No.317/19, T.S. No.1, Division 19, Block No.18 of Velachery Village, Mambalam – Guindy Taluk, Chennai District, measuring an extent of one ground and 940 sq. ft. and being bounded on the:

¶46

North by : Land belonging to Mahalakshmi Suryuanarayana, South by : 30 feet road, East by : Plot No.11, West by : Plot No.9,

¶47

and measuring :-

¶48

North to South on the Eastern side : 84 feet,

¶49

North to South on the Western side : 83 feet,

¶50

East to West on the Northern side : 40 feet,

¶51

East to West on the Southern side : 40 feet

¶52

in all total measuring an extent of one ground and 900 sq. ft.

¶53

SCHEDULE – B

¶54

All that piece and parcel of the land and building bearing Plot No.9, in “BHUVANESWARI NAGAR”, comprised in Survey No.317/1, New

¶55

¶56

Survey No.317/19, T.S. No.1, Division 19, Block No.18 of Velachery Village, Mambalam – Guindy Taluk, Chennai District, measuring an extent of one ground and 900 sq. ft. and being bounded on the:

¶57

North by : Land belonging to Mahalakshmi Suryuanarayana, South by : 30 feet road, East by : Plot No.8,

¶58

West by : Plot No.10,

¶59

and measuring :-

¶60

North to South on the Eastern side : 83 feet,

¶61

North to South on the Western side : 82 feet,

¶62

East to West on the Northern side : 40 feet,

¶63

East to West on the Southern side : 40 feet

¶64

in all total measuring an extent of one ground and 900 sq. ft.

¶65

But, it is the contention of the Applicants that the property covered

¶66

under the sale deeds executed in December 2008 purchased by the Applicants is entirely different from the properties covered under the Suit decree. In support of his contention, the Applicants would rely on the information furnished under the Right to Information Act 2005 by Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Velachery Taluk. Thus, it is stated that the suit schedule 'A' property cannot be the one described as T.S.No.1, Division 19, Block 18. The said Block 18 is in fact only a land parcel classified by

¶67

Government as Poramboke as per TSLR and the property in the name of 1^st

¶68

¶69

plaintiff situated in Old Survey No.317/1, New Survey No.317/19, Patta No.3059 is actually included in Velachery, Block No.189 assigned Town Survey No.1, Sub Division 1. These details are available in the Government e-service portal as well. In this connection, the Counsel entered appearance for Respondent/Decree Holder and has sought time for filing counter. Despite granting sufficient opportunities to the Respondent/Decree Holder, the Respondent/Decree Holder have not filed their counter and they were set exparte. Heard the Applicant side arguments. It is seen that there is misdescription of suit schedule property and the Decree Holder/Respondent has not bothered to clarity the same. In such position, this court is of the

¶70

opinion that the contentions of the Applicants/Judgment Debtors/Defendants are acceptable in nature and this execution petition cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Accordingly, this application is allowed. Consequentially, the execution petition is dismissed.

¶71

Sd./-MASTER

¶72

23/02/2021 //Certified to be true copy//

¶73

Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶74

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶75

From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶76

JJ 16/07/2021

K.M.Ramesh and another v. S.Sampath Kumar and 10 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Ramesh and another v. S.Sampath Kumar and 10 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

Case details

Similar cases

S. Jayashankar Vs h

Mr.T.Jacob Chinnadurai Vs John Premkumar

M/S Abb India Limited, Vs M/S Resurgent Power Projects

Ilms Home Park Private Limited Vs Land Marvel Homes and 4 others

M. Deepan Vs N.Mohan and 8 others

Raghavendra Constructions Vs the General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai