Disposed

G.Vinayagamurugan v. Sudhagaran

Madras HC9 Apr 2021CRP/2320/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three civil revision petitions were filed to set aside interlocutory applications allowing the appointment of an advocate commissioner to measure the third floor of a building. The bench clarified that while decrees were passed for the first two floors, the third floor was never part of the sale agreements and thus cannot be claimed by the plaintiffs.

What did the court decide?

No further orders required. Parties to return to lower court to advance arguments in pending appeals.

G.Vinayagamurugan Vs Sudhagaran — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2320 to 2322 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.04.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2320 to 2322 of 2019
and
C.M.P.Nos.15152, 15157 &15156 of 2019
1.G.Vinayagamurugan
2.Kumaran ... Petitioners in
CRP.NPD.No.2320/2019
1.G.Vinayagamurugan
2.Gayathri ... Petitioners in
CRP.NPD.Nos.2321 & 2322/2019
Vs.
1.Sudhakaran
2.Gunasekaran
3.Valarmathy .... Respondents in
CRP.NPD.No.2320/2019
1.Venkatesan
2.Gunasekaran
3.Valarmathy .... Respondents in
CRP.NPD.No.2322/2019

¶6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶7

1/7

¶8

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2320 to 2322 of 2019

1.Malarvannan

2.Gunasekaran

3.Valarmathy

.... Respondents in CRP.NPD.No.2321/2019

¶13

COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to the order and decreetal order dated 27.04.2019 made in I.A.Nos.845, 849 & 853 of 2018 in A.S.No.23, 24 & 25 of 2017 on the file of the Hon'ble II Additional District Judge, Puducherry and set aside the same.

¶14

For Petitioners
In all petitions : Mr.M.Sundargopal
For Respondents
In all petitions : Mr.S.Sudarshan [for R1]
*****
C O M M O N O R D E R

¶15

These three revision petitions have been filed by the defendants in

¶16

three appeals in A.S.No.23 of 2017, A.S.No.24 of 2017 and A.S.No.25 of 2017

¶17

which are all pending on the file of II Additional District Court, Puducherry.

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶19

2/7

¶20

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2320 to 2322 of 2019

¶21

A small examination of the facts is required. Three suits were originally filed, namely in O.S.No.138 of 2003, O.S.No.424 of 2003 and O.S.No.8 of 2004. The plaintiff in O.S.No.138 of 2003 is Mr.P.Sudhakaran. He had instituted the suit on the basis of an agreement seeking specific performance to convey the 2^nd floor of the property at Kamaraj Nagar, Saram Revenue Village, Uzhavar Karai Munucipality in Puducherry in re-Survey No.336/2. In O.S.No.424 of 2003, the plaintiff is Mr.P.Venkadesan, who had instituted the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement to convey the ground floor of the said building. In O.S.No.8 of 2004, the plaintiff is Mr.D.Malarvannan, who had instituted the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement to convey the 1^st floor. In effect, the three suits have been filed seeking specific performance of three seperate agreements, by which, it was agreed to convey the ground floor, 1^st floor and 2^nd floor of the said building.

¶22

The parties went to trial, and the suits were decreed.

¶23

Thereafter, A.S.No.23 of 2017 had been filed questioning the

¶24

judgment in O.S.No.138 of 2003. Similarly A.S.No.24 of 2017 had been filed questioning the judgment in O.S.No.424 of 2003 and A.S.No.25 of 2017 had been filed questioning the judgment in O.S.No.8 of 2004.

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶26

3/7

¶27

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2320 to 2322 of 2019

¶28

All the three First Appeals are pending in the Court of the II

¶29

Additional Distirct Judge, Puducherry.

¶30

At that stage, the Interlocutory Applications were filed in all the

¶31

three First Appeals seeking permission for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure the 3^rd floor of the said building. It is to be mentioned that the agreements were only to convey the ground floor, 1^st floor and 2^nd floor. In the schedule given in all the three agreements, it had been specifically stated that the building consists of three floors. There is no

¶32

agreement with respect to conveying the 3^rd floor.

¶33

Commissioner to note down the physical features of the 3^rd floor had been

¶34

dismissed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Puducherry, leading to

¶35

filing of the instant three Civil Revision Petitions.

¶36

Since arguments are to be advanced in the First Appeals, it may

¶37

not be appropriate on the part of this Court to examine the merits of the case. However, let me limit myself to state that the building has a ground floor, 1^st

¶38

floor, 2^nd floor and 3^rd floor. Agreements of sale have been entered into only

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/7

¶40

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2320 to 2322 of 2019

¶41

with respect to ground floor, 1^st floor and 2^nd floor. The respondents in the First appeals / plaintiffs in the three suits can claim right only with respect to the ground floor, 1^st floor and 2^nd floor and cannot claim any right over the 3^rd floor. That aspect is also affirmed by Mr.S.Sudarshan, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent in all the three revision petitions. This position would clarify the apprehension of the present petitioners that under the guise of obtaining a decree with respect of ground floor, 1^st floor and 2^nd floor, the 1^st respondent may also take control of the 3^rd floor. The 3^rd floor, to repeat, is not the subject matter of any one of the three agreements of sale which are now under consideration in the three First Appeals, now pending before the II Additional Family Court at Puducherry.

¶42

I am confident that this clarification would satisfy the present

¶43

petitioners before this Court. No further orders are required. The parties are advised to go back to the II Additional District Court, Puducherry and advance arguments in the respective First Appeals which are pending there.

¶44

The order under question is upheld, but the observation above

¶45

are made for clarification of the said fact for the benefit of the revision

¶46

petitioners.

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶48

5/7

¶49

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2320 to 2322 of 2019

¶50

Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No

¶51

order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶52

09.04.2021
bri
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
To
The II Additional District Judge,
Puducherry.

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶54

6/7

¶55

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2320 to 2322 of 2019

¶56

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶57

bri

¶58

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2320 to 2322 of 2019
and
C.M.P.Nos.15152, 15157 &15156 of 2019
09.04.2021

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶60

7/7

G.Vinayagamurugan v. Sudhagaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Vinayagamurugan v. Sudhagaran

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

Velkumar Vs v.v.Subbaiah

S.Subramanian Vs K.Haridoss

D.Dany Heston Vs S.Murugan

R.M.Ravi Chandran Vs v.Praba

P.Dhandapani Vs G.Amutha

K.Navin Vs Kali (Since Died)