Vikram Singh v. Hari Singh N Chhabria and another

Madras HC2 Jul 2025A/2851/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Modification of Judge Commissioner's sale permission: private sale to adjacent owner M/s.Ashok Leyland Limited in place of public auction of Item No.2 of Schedule-B; unanimous consent of parties; adequacy of consideration left to Judge Commissioner with party consent safeguard; completion deadline 31.08.2025; arises from C.S.No.1242 of 1992 / A.No.2914 of 2004; order dated 18.07.2011; High Court of Judicature at Madras; C.V. Karthikeyan J.; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to the learned Judge Commissioner (Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.Ramamurthi (Retd.)) to negotiate with the adjacent land owner M/s.Ashok Leyland Limited for private sale of Item No.2 of Schedule-B property, ensuring adequate consideration, and to endeavour to complete the sale on or before 31.08.2025. ¶¶39

Vikram Singh Vs Hari Singh N Chhabria and another — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether permission should be granted for private sale of Item No.2 of Schedule-B property (in place of public auction) to M/s.Ashok Leyland Limited, the owner of the adjacent property. +1 more

¶¶27

Court's answer

All the parties consented that private sale of the property described as Item No.2 in Schedule-B could be the viable and proper procedure to be followed.

¶¶35

Ratio / Principle

The application stands allowed and permission is granted to the learned Judge Commissioner to negotiate with the adjacent land owner, M/s.Ashok Leyland Limited, and ensure adequate consideration is obtained for the property.

¶¶39

Key takeaways

The adequacy of the price was left to the learned Judge Commissioner: he may proceed further with the sale only if the price stated by him is adequate and the parties also consent to that consideration.ratio¶¶40
The learned Judge Commissioner was directed to endeavour to complete the sale on or before 31.08.2025.ratio¶¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (C.V. Karthikeyan J.) allowed A.No.2851 of 2025 seeking modification of the order dated 18.07.2011 in A.No.2914 of 2004 in C.S.No.1242 of 1992, which had permitted the learned Judge Commissioner, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.Ramamurthi (Retd.), to sell the suit schedule properties through public auction. With all parties consenting that private sale would be the viable and proper procedure, the Court permitted the Judge Commissioner to negotiate with the adjacent land owner, M/s.Ashok Leyland Limited, for private sale of Item No.2 of Schedule-B to the plaint, ensuring adequate consideration, and to proceed only if the price was adequate and the parties consented thereto; the sale was to be endeavoured to be completed on or before 31.08.2025.

¶1

A No. 2851 of 2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 02-07-2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

¶7

A No. 2851 of 2025 in A.No.2914 of 2004 in C.S.No.1242 of 1992

¶8

Vikram Singh No.43, Sembudoos Street, Chennai 600 001.

¶9

Applicant(s)

¶10

¶11

1.Hari Singh N Chhabria and another 2.Anitha P.C

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER:

¶14

This application filed to modify the order dated 18.07.2011 in A.No.2914 of 2004 in C.S.No.1242 of 1992 by permitting the Learned Judge Commissioner - Honble Mr.Justice A.Ramamurthi (Retd) to sell the Item No.2 of Schedule B property to the plaint by means of Private Sale to M/s.Ashok Leyland Limited.

¶15

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

¶16

A No. 2851 of 2025

¶17

¶18

For Applicant: Mr.R.Parthasarathy, Senior Counsel For Mr.Rahul Balaji For Respondent: Mr.R.Thiagarajan for R2

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Application has been filed seeking to modify the order dated

¶21

18.07.2011 in A.No.2914 of 2004, whereby the learned Judge Commissioner,

¶22

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.Ramamurthi, Former Judge of this Court was permitted to

¶23

sell the suit schedule properties through public auction.

¶24

2.It is contended that the properties had been sold through public auction.

¶25

But however, one property which had been described as Item No.2 of Schedule

¶26

B to the plaint is the subject matter of this application and it is contended that

¶27

permission should be granted to sell this particular property through private sale to M/s.Ashok Leyland Limited, who is the owner of the adjacent property. It is stated that this would be convenient and it is further contended that the price or

¶28

consideration offered by the intending purchaser is also equivalent to the price

¶29

which the parties would obtain even if the property were to be auctioned.

¶30

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

¶31

A No. 2851 of 2025

¶32

¶33

3.Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and the

¶34

learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents. The learned Judge Commissioner is also represented by the counsel.

¶35

4.All the parties have consented that this sale could be viable and

¶36

proper procedure to be followed in sale of the property, which is described as

¶37

Item No.2 in Schedule – B.

¶38

5.Taking all the factors into consideration, this application stands

¶39

allowed and permission is granted to the learned Judge Commissioner to negotiate with the adjacent land owner, M/s.Ashok Leyland Limited and ensure

¶40

that adequate consideration is obtained for the property. If the price stated by the learned Judge Commissioner is adequate, if the parties also consent with the said consideration, the learned Judge Commissioner may proceed further with

¶41

the sale of the property. The learned Judge Commissioner may endeavour to complete the sale on or before 31.08.2025.

¶42

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

¶43

A No. 2851 of 2025

¶44

¶45

6.My attention is also drawn to the fact that, at some point of time,

¶46

C.S.No.1242 of 1992 also passed through the office in which I was attached as

¶47