Dismissed

S.Lakshmipathy v. L.Gowtham Raj

Madras HC20 Feb 2023CS/737/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment records a compromise between parties in a suit for redemption of mortgaged property. The mortgagee agreed to return the original documents upon retrieval and indemnify the plaintiff. The court decreed the suit based on the compromise, with the respondent bearing registration costs.

What did the court decide?

Decreed the civil suit in terms of the Memo of Compromise dated 20.02.2023. The defendant shall bear registration charges. No costs awarded.

S.Lakshmipathy Vs L.Gowtham Raj — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.S.No.737 of 2011 and A.No.4964 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶6

C.S.No.737 of 2011 and A.No.4964 of 2022

¶7

S.Lakshmipathy ... Plaintiff

¶8

Vs.

¶9

L.Gowtham Raj ... Defendant

¶10

Prayer: The Civil Suit has been filed under Order IV Rule 1 Order XXXVII Rule 2 of Original Side Rules and Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., prays for a judgment and decree:-

¶11

a) that an account may be taken of the amount due to the defendant for principal interest and costs;

¶12

(b) that upon payment of the same by the plaintiff, directing the defendant to deliver the mortgage instrument and all other documents in his possession relating to the schedule property to the plaintiff and to execute and register an acknowledgment in writing to the effect that the interest credited by the mortgage has been extinguished;

¶13

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

¶14

C.S.No.737 of 2011 and A.No.4964 of 2022

¶15

(c) granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property by the defendant or by his men or agent or anybody claiming through or under him except under the due process of law and for costs.

¶16

For Plaintiff : M/s.A.Balasingh Ramanujam For Defendant : Mr.D.Saikumaran JUDGMENT

¶17

Joint Memo of Compromise dated 20.02.2023 has been filed. The respondent is present before this Court.

¶18

2.In a suit for redemption, mortgage money has been entirely paid but original title deeds deposited with the mortgagee has not been returned. Mortgagee consistently makes a statement that the mortgage deed has been misplaced and that he could not trace it.

¶19

3.This issue has been coming before this Court and also before the learned Master frequently. This Court is now informed that the parties have arrived at an understanding by it. The mortgagee would return the original documents to the plaintiff as and when he finds it. In the meantime, in case

¶20

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

¶21

C.S.No.737 of 2011 and A.No.4964 of 2022

¶22

it was misused by anybody the mortgagee will also indemnify such loss which the mortgagor may suffer. This is the quintessence of the memo now filed.

¶23

4.It is this dispute which is now compromised. Memo of Compromise dated

¶24

20.02.2023 is recorded and taken on file.

¶25

5.The concerned Sub Registrar, Sowcarpet is also required to register the same on payment of such charges which may be statutorily payable for registering of this order. In the eventuality of any registration charges need to be paid on it, the defendant / respondent shall bear the same.

¶26

6.Accordingly, the civil suit is decreed in terms of the Memo of compromise. The Memo of compromise dated 20.02.2023 shall form part of the decree. No costs. Consequently, the connected application is disposed of.

¶27

20.02.2023

¶28

anu

¶29

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

¶30

C.S.No.737 of 2011 and A.No.4964 of 2022

¶31

N.SESHASAYEE., J. Anu

¶32

C.S.No.737 of 2011 and A.No.4964 of 2022

¶33

20.02.2023

¶34

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

S.Lakshmipathy v. L.Gowtham Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Lakshmipathy v. L.Gowtham Raj

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

T.M.Jothi Vs E.Sambasivan(died)

K.Jayakaran Vs Mrs Radhika Alias Lakshmi and 32 Others

Caparo Vehicle Products Vs State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd. (Sipcot)

B.Radhakrishnan Vs B.Jagadeeswari

Gandhimathy Kingsley(Died) 1.A.KINGSLEY and 2 Others Vs a.Soundararajan and 3 Others

Tmt.Vijayalakshmi and 2 others Vs Gayathri and 3 others