Allowed

Sankaran Pillai @ a.Murugan v. Gopalakrishnan

Madras HC22 Jun 2023CMA(MD)/61/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an order of remand. The single-judge bench held that remand requires setting aside trial court findings and recording specific reasons, which were absent. The impleading of a third-party purchaser did not justify remand as the purchaser claimed no independent defense. Consequently, the remand order was set aside, and the matter

What did the court decide?

The order of remand was set aside; the matter remitted to the first appellate Court for disposal on merits by 31.12.2023. No order as to costs.

Sankaran Pillai @ a.Murugan Vs Gopalakrishnan — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD).No.61 of 2014

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.06.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

C.M.A(MD)No.61 of 2014 and

¶7

M.P(MD) No.1 of 2014

¶8

Sankaran Pillai @ A.Murugan 2. Sornam ... Appellants/Respondents 1&2/ Defendants 2 & 3/ Cross Objectors 1 and 2

¶9

-vs-

¶10

Gopalakrishnan ... 1^st Respondent/Appellant/ Plaintiff 2. Valli 3. Yogheeswaran ... Respondents 2 & 3/ Respondents 3 & 4/ Defendants 4 & 5 4. Chandra ... 4^th Respondent/ 5^th Respondent 7^th Defendant 5. Renukadevai ... 5^th Respondent/ Impleaded Respondent/ 3^rd Party

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 43 Rule 1 (U) r/w Section 104 of C.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil, dated 23.07.2013 in A.S.No.35 of 2006 & Cross Objections and remand the same.

¶12

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

¶13

1/7

¶14

C.M.A.(MD).No.61 of 2014

¶15

For Appellants : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar

¶16

For Respondents : Mr. E.V.N.Siva – for R1 No appearance For – R2 to R5

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the defendants 2 and 3 in a suit for specific performance challenging the order of remand passed by the first appellate Court.

¶19

2. The first respondent herein as plaintiff has filed O.S.No.113 of 1990, originally, for the relief of recovery of advance amount on the basis of a sale agreement dated 23.04.1987. Later, the plaint was amended to incorporate the relief of specific performance. The trial Court found that the relief of specific performance is barred by limitation, but proceeded to grant a money decree in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.43,500/- (Rupees Forty Three Thousand and Five Hundred only). The plaintiff had challenged the rejection of specific performance decree in A.S.No.35 of 2006. The defendants 2 and 3 have filed Cross Objection challenging the money decree.

¶20

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

¶21

2/7

¶22

C.M.A.(MD).No.61 of 2014

¶23

3. Pending first appeal, the defendants have sold a portion of the property to a third party viz., Renukadevi. The plaintiff had filed I.A.No.84 of 2011 to implead the said pendentilite purchaser as one of the parties to the appeal. Though it was opposed by the respondents/defendants, ultimately, it was allowed. The learned first appellate Judge has allowed I.A.No.84 of 2011 and on the said ground, he has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remitted the matter back to the trial Court. This order of remand is under challenge in the present appeal.

¶24

4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, by way of a common order in I.A.No.84 of 2011 and A.S.No.35 of 2006, the first appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remitted the matter back to the trial Court. Except the impleading of a pendentilite purchaser, no reason has been assigned by the first appellate Court for setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order of remand.

¶25

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/ plaintiff had contended that when a new party is added during the appeal

¶26

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

¶27

3/7

¶28

C.M.A.(MD).No.61 of 2014

¶29

proceedings, certainly, an opportunity has to be granted to file a written statement in order to defend the case. Therefore, the first appellate Court was right in remitting the matter back to the trial Court.

¶30

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on records.

¶31

7. A perusal of the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court indicates that the first appellate Court has not set aside or reversed any one of the findings of the trial Court. It is settled position of law, that an order of remand cannot be passed without setting aside the findings of the trial Court. After setting aside the findings of the trial Court, the first appellate Court shall also record a finding that it is not in a position to arrive at a conclusion, in view of lack of oral or documentary evidence and then only, the matter can be remitted back to the trial Court. In the present case, both the ingredients have not been satisfied. The impleading of a pendentilite purchaser cannot be a ground to remand the matter back to the trial Court. That apart, the purchaser had only entered into the shoes of the defendants and therefore, he cannot have an independent defence in the said suit. Therefore, no purpose

¶32

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

¶33

4/7

¶34

C.M.A.(MD).No.61 of 2014

¶35

would be served remitting the matter back to the trial Court.

¶36

8. In view of the above said deliberations, the order of remand is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the first appellate Court, for considering the first appeal and the Cross Objection on merits and in accordance with law. After giving due opportunity to all the parties concerned, the first appellate Court shall do well to dispose of the appeal on or before 31.12.2023 .

¶37

9. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶38

22.06.2023

¶39

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi

¶40

To 1. Th e District Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil.

¶41

The Section Officer,

¶42

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

¶43

5/7

¶44

C.M.A.(MD).No.61 of 2014

¶45

Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶46

R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

¶47

ebsi

¶48

C.M.A.(MD)No.61 of 2014

¶49

22.06.2023

¶50

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

¶51

6/7

¶52

C.M.A.(MD).No.61 of 2014

¶53

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

¶54

7/7

Sankaran Pillai @ a.Murugan v. Gopalakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankaran Pillai @ a.Murugan v. Gopalakrishnan

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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.National Insurance Co. Vs v.Vinukumar

M/S.Pharm Products (P) Ltd., Vs Regional Deputy Director

S. Kasikumar Vs Jayanthi

Christabha Jebakani Vs Cheif Controlling Revenue

Sivaraj Alias Sivarajan Vs Mr.Manimohan

Murugan Vs Vadamalai