Allowed

V.Vijayalakshmi v. N.R.Vatsala and 3 others

Madras HC6 Feb 2023A/538/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge Order allowed applications filed by pendente lite purchasers in a suit for specific performance. The court held that the sale agreement does not create an interest and the purchaser must be present for title transfer. The court also waived the 30-day timeline for the defendants' written statement as they knew about the litigation.

What did the court decide?

A.Nos.538 and 539 of 2020 allowed. Order for amendment to plaint. Notice period extended; defendants directed not to ignore procedure knowing about litigation. Case posted.

V.Vijayalakshmi Vs N.R.Vatsala and 3 others — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

A.Nos.538 and 539 of 2020 and A.No.7799 of 2019 in C.S.No.718 of 2006

¶2

A.Nos.538 and 539 of 2020 and A.No.7799 of 2019 in C.S.No.718 of 2006

¶3

N.SESHASAYEE.J.,

¶4

A.Nos.538 and 539 of 2020 have been taken out by a pendente lite purchaser of the

¶5

suit property from the 3^rd defendant in a suit for specific performance. It is principally opposed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff on the ground that there was an order of injunction operating against the 3^rd defendant from alienating the property, and despite that this Court has been hoodwinked in selling the property through the power of attorney of the 3^rd defendant to the pendente lite purchaser / the applicant herein. Earlier, an application for initiating action in contempt was taken out by the plaintiff but owing to his death, it was closed.

¶6

2.That the 3^rd defendant has violated an order of injunction, need not necessarily imply that the applicant might not be heard. After all, in a suit for specific performance, the burden is fundamentally on the plaintiff to prove his case, and with the sole defendant having parted with the property in favour of these applicants, it is important to ensure that the applicants interests are represented before the Court. It may be underscored that mere sale agreement does not create

¶7

1/4

¶8

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

¶9

A.Nos.538 and 539 of 2020 and A.No.7799 of 2019 in C.S.No.718 of 2006

¶10

any interest over the land, and the presence of the subsequent purchaser is essential to transfer title to the plaintiff in the eventuality of plaintiff succeeding in his pursuit for a decree for specific performance.

¶11

3.Hence A.No.538 of 2020 and A.No.539 of 2020 are allowed. The plaintiff is required to carryout necessary amendment today.

¶12

4.Inasmuch as the applicant herein knew about the litigation, and inasmuch as they

¶13

have volunteered to enter appearance in the case, this Court may have to waive certain aspects of procedure and has to break the rule to insist the defendants to file their written statement within a period of 30 days. After all, procedure is only a handmaid of justice and it cannot be glorified far beyond its real utility. The defendants are entitled to a notice and a hearing and that has already been extended by this Court. Now, it is their duty not to fall back on certain aspects of procedure which sets unnecessary time line for a person, who knew about the litigation, for filing their written statement.

¶14

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

A.Nos.538 and 539 of 2020 and A.No.7799 of 2019 in C.S.No.718 of 2006

¶16

5.Learned counsel for the plaintiff is directed to circulate plaint and other

¶17

documents today, to which the learned counsel concurs.

¶18

6.Post the matter on 20.02.2023.

06.02.2023

Anu /kas

3/4

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

¶23

A.Nos.538 and 539 of 2020 and A.No.7799 of 2019 in C.S.No.718 of 2006

¶24

N.SESHASAYEE.J.,

¶25

Anu

¶26

A.Nos.538 and 539 of 2020 and A.No.7799 of 2019 in C.S.No.718 of 2006

¶27

06.02.2023

¶28

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

V.Vijayalakshmi v. N.R.Vatsala and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Vijayalakshmi v. N.R.Vatsala and 3 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

Sudha Umashankar, Vs Dr.Lakshmi Jayakumar and 2 Others

K.Ravi Vs Mrs. K.Indiraniammal Ammal (Deceased) 1.MR.K.VADIVELU and 5 Others

Will of S.Krishnaswamy Vs S.K.Sampath

A.Dhandayuthapani and 3 others Vs S.Senbagavalli

S.Antony Samy Vs K.Manian and 4 Others

T.Logeswaran (Deceased) 1.L.Sheila and another Vs P.Ranganathan Reddiar (Deceased) R.Rukmani (Deceased) 1.L.Indirani and 7 others