Allowed¶27

N. Nandakumar v. M.Mani

Madras HC7 Mar 2025CMP/12353/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment of subsequent purchaser as necessary party in pending Second Appeal; Madras High Court allows CMP No. 12353 of 2024 in SA No. 755 of 2023 on the strength of a compromise dated 14.02.2025 between plaintiff, defendant and purchaser and Sale Deed recitals (dated 10.06.2023) evidencing full payment of sale consideration; 2nd respondent's claim of Rs. 70 lakhs balance consideration rejected as unsustainable; courts below: II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore and II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore; single-judge order by T.V.Thamilselvi J.; no statutes or precedent citations in the judgment.

What did the court decide?

CMP No. 12353 of 2024 allowed; purchaser N. Nandakumar impleaded as the 2nd respondent in SA No. 755 of 2023. ¶27

N. Nandakumar Vs M.Mani — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CMP NO. 12353 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-03-2025

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CMP No. 12353 of 2024 in SA No. 755 of 2023

¶4

N. Nandakumar

¶5

S/o. Late G.N.Narayanasamy, No.4/90 C3, Kattampatti Village, Ganesapuram-641 107, Coimbatore District.

Appellant(s)

M.Mani

S/o. Muthusamy Chettiar, Having Business at No.823, Ranga Gounder Street, Coimbatore and Residing at Door No.162E, Edayar Street, Chokkampudur Road, Coimbatore-641 001. and another

¶10

Respondent(s)

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr.P. Saravana Sowmiyan For Respondent(s): Mr.G.Ponnamabala Thiyagarajan for R2

¶12

Mr.Eswar Kumar for R1

¶13

ORDER

¶14

After disposal of the First Appeal, one Nandakumar purchased the suit

¶15

properties from the respondent Periyasamy on 10.06.2023. Thereafter only, the present Second Appeal has been filed in the month of October 2023. After the purchase, the purchaser wants him to implead as necessary party.

¶16

1\4

¶17

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

¶18

2.When the matter came up for hearing both the parties appeared before

¶19

this Court.

¶20

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the purchaser of the suit property under a Sale Deed dated 10.06.2023 from the plaintiff/2^nd respondent herein.

¶21

4.The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent submitted that on 14.02.2025, there was a compromise entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant and Mr.N. Nandakumar, who is the purchaser of the property. Hence, he agreed to withdraw this Second Appeal.

¶22

5.The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that at the time of purchase, there was another compromise entered into between the parties. Accordingly, the petitioner herein is bound to pay a sum of Rs.70 lakhs as a part of the sale consideration and the said compromise was arrived at between the parties during the pendency of the suit proceedings and behind his back. The petitioner and the 1^st respondent have entered into a compromise and he should not bind his claim of Rs.70 lakhs from the purchaser that there was no such term written in the said Sale Deed. Therefore, based on the averments in the Sale Deed, the petitioner has paid a valid consideration. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the entire sale consideration has been paid and

¶23

2\4

¶24

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

¶25

to that effect, they have received Receipts.

¶26

6.As per the recitals of the Sale Deed dated 10.06.2023, a valid consideration was paid. Therefore, the objections raised by the 2^nd respondent before this Court is unsustainable and his submission is not acceptable.

¶27

7.Since the compromise entered between the parties, this C.M.P.No.12353 of 2024 is allowed. The petitioner purchased the property from the plaintiff. Therefore, it is necessary to implead him as a party to the Second Appeal. Hence, he is impleaded as the 2^nd respondent in the Second Appeal.

07-03-2025

mps

1.The II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

¶32

2.The II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.

¶33

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶34