Dismissed

M.Sheik Farith Mohideen v. Muhammed Umare Farook

Madras HC9 Apr 2021AS(MD)/103/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against a suit for recovery of rental arrears was dismissed. The appellant relied on a prior specific performance suit where their right over the property was negatived. With no valid defence remaining and the decree already deposited, the High Court confirmed the trial court's judgment.

What did the court decide?

The appeal suit is dismissed; judgment of trial court confirmed; no costs.

M.Sheik Farith Mohideen Vs Muhammed Umare Farook — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

A.S.(MD)No.103 of 2012 and

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN A.S.(MD)No.103 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012

¶5

M.Sheik Farith Mohideen

¶6

M.Abdhul Rahman

¶7

Sulaima Nasima

¶8

Ajisal

¶9

Alimal Beevi

¶10

... Appellants/Defendants 2 to 6

¶11

Vs.

¶12

Muhammad Umare Farook

¶13

Muhammad Usman ... Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶14

Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.68 of 2010 dated 12.07.2012 on the file of the fourth Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.

¶15

For Appellant : Mr.H.Arumugam

¶16

For Respondent : Mr.P.Thiyagarajan

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶19

Defendants 2 to 6 are the appellants in this appeal. The respondents herein filed O.S.No.68 of 2010 on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,01,500/- from the defendants towards rental arrears. The said suit was decreed on 12.07.2012. Challenging the same, this first appeal came to be filed.

¶20

When the matter was taken up for hearing, it is submitted that the defence of the appellants was that the relationship of landlord and tenant no longer exists and that the appellants have right over the property in question under a sale agreement. The appellants filed suit for specific performance of the sale agreement. But then, the judgment and decree in the said suit went against the appellants and the same was confirmed right https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ up to the Supreme Court.

¶21

1/2

¶22

A.S.(MD)No.103 of 2012 and

¶23

Since the appellants' prayer for specific performance had been negatived, nothing may really survive for consideration. It is also stated that the appellants had already deposited the decreetal amount before the trial Court. The Judgment passed by the trial Court is confirmed. This appeal suit is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

Assistant Registrar (T&P)

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶27

PMU

¶28

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶29

To:

¶30

The IV Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.

¶31

The Record Keeper-2 copies

¶32

V.R.Section,

¶33

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶34

+1 CC to Mr.P.THIYAGARAJAN, Advocate ( SR-15737[F] dated 09/04/2021 )

¶35

+1 CC to Mr.H.ARUMUGAM, Advocate ( SR-16090[F] dated 16/04/2021 )

¶36

A.S.(MD)No.103 of 2012 09.04.2021

¶37

KM(19.05.2021) 2P 6C

¶38

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

¶39

2/2

M.Sheik Farith Mohideen v. Muhammed Umare Farook

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sheik Farith Mohideen v. Muhammed Umare Farook

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

Periasami Vs Krishnan

K.T.Vasudevaiyer Vs M.B.Krishnaiyer

K.T.v.Handloom Centre Vs M.B.Krishnaiyer

S. Balasubramanian Vs R. Lalitha

S.Ramar Vs S.Seeniammal

Sucila, Vs Pauline @ Rajeshwari