E.B.Jayaprakash ( Deceased ) v. a.P.Sukumar

Madras HC10 Mar 2026AS/922/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AS No. 922 of 2012, Madras High Court, decided 10-03-2026 (C.V. Karthikeyan & K. Rajasekar, JJ.). Defendants' appeal against specific-performance decree dated 30.06.2010 of Principal District Judge, Namakkal in O.S.No.107 of 2008 (plaintiff A.P. Sukumar). Suit property sub-divided into plots and sold by eight sale deeds after decree; possession handed over; property not available. Appeal dismissed as nothing survives; no costs. Keywords: specific performance; Appeal Suit dismissed; suit property sold; legal representatives; Namakkal.

What did the court decide?

None - the Appeal Suit was dismissed with no costs. ¶39-40

E.B.Jayaprakash ( Deceased ) Vs a.P.Sukumar — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

AS No. 922 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶8

AS No. 922 of 2012

¶9

E.B.Jayaprakash ( Deceased )

¶10

J.Mynavathy

¶11

Kavitha @ Angalaparameswari

¶12

Ramesh @ Saravanan

¶13

Prabhu

¶14

Appellants 3 to 5 are brought on record as L.Rs.of deceased 1^st Appellant vide Order dated 21.11.2014 in M.P.No.1/2014

..Appellant(s)

A.P.Sukumar

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER : Appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 30.06.2010, passed in O.S.No.107 of 2008 on the file of Principal District Judge, Namakkal.

¶20

__________ Page1 of 4

¶21

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

¶22

AS No. 922 of 2012

¶23

For Appellant(s): Mr.Krishnakumar, for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates For Respondent(s): Ms.D.Chitra Maragadham for Mr.T.R.Rajaraman

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

¶26

The property has already been sold by dividing the same into plots. The

¶27

same had been recorded by this Court on 15.12.2025 as under :

¶28

“The learned counsel for the respondent had forwarded the details of the plots, which had been sold subsequent to the decree on 30.03.2012. By eight (8) separate documents of sale, the properties have been sub-divided into plots and have been sold. Subsequent to this, an order of stay had been granted on 01.11.2012.

¶29

2. The learned counsel for the respondents states that however even before the date, further sale conveyances had been taken place over the properties and possession has also been handed over.”

¶30