Allowed¶56

Arumuga Padayachi(Died) v. Ponnambalam - died

Madras HC1 Apr 2026CRP/2009/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Specific performance suit O.S.No.63 of 2004 (Villupuram); joint memo of compromise dated 21.11.2006 in C.R.P.Nos.859 & 937 of 2005; deposit of balance sale consideration Rs.1,50,000/-; payment receipt Principal Subordinate Court Villupuram; I.A.No.103 of 2007 dismissal application; I.A.No.622 of 2012 order set aside; Article 227 revision; suit transferred as O.S.No.174 of 2018 Sub Court Ulundurpet; disposal directed within three months; Justice K. Kumaresh Babu; decided 01-04-2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned fair and decreetal orders dated 28.10.2013 in I.A.No.622 of 2012 set aside; Sub Court, Ulundurpet directed to dispose of the transferred suit O.S.No.174 of 2018 within three months from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶56

Arumuga Padayachi(Died) Vs Ponnambalam - died — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the fair and decreetal orders dated 28.10.2013 passed in I.A.No.622 of 2012 in O.S.No.63 of 2004 (Additional Sub Court, Villupuram) should be set aside in view of this Court's earlier orders recording the joint memo of compromise and compliance therewith. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

This Court's order dated 21.11.2006 had specifically recorded that the deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- towards sale consideration had been made, substantiated by a payment receipt produced before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, and acknowledged by the learned counsel for the defendants.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

Since the deposit stood recorded as made pursuant to the joint memo of compromise, the dispute stood settled between the parties and it was for the defendants to execute the sale deed pursuant to the deposit of the sale consideration.

¶55

Key takeaways

The subsequent events recorded after the filing of I.A.No.103 of 2007 were not taken note of by the trial Court; the suit ought to have been disposed of based upon the orders of this Court made on 26.02.2007.ratio¶55
The order impugned in the revision petition stands set aside; the Sub Court, Ulundurpet is directed to dispose of the suit (transferred as O.S.No.174 of 2018) within three months from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.ratio¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against fair and decreetal orders dated 28.10.2013 in I.A.No.622 of 2012 in O.S.No.63 of 2004 (Additional Sub Court, Villupuram) arising out of a suit for specific performance. The suit was governed by a joint memo of compromise dated 21.11.2006 recorded in the disposal of C.R.P.Nos.859 and 937 of 2005, under which the plaintiff was to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 05.12.2006 and the defendants were to execute the sale deed. When the revisions were next mentioned, this Court recorded compliance on production of a payment receipt for Rs.1,50,000/- issued by the Principal Subordinate Court, Villupuram. Holding that the deposit thus stood recorded as made, that the dispute was settled and only execution of the sale deed remained, and that the trial Court failed to take note of the subsequent events and ought to have disposed of the suit per this Court's orders of 26.02.2007, the High Court (K. Kumaresh Babu, J.) set aside the impugned order and directed the Sub Court, Ulundurpet — where the suit pends as O.S.No.174 of 2018 — to dispose of it within three months. No costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. Decided 01-04-2026.

¶1

CRP No. 2009 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

CRP No. 2009 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶7

Arumuga Padayachi(died)

¶8

Govindan

¶9

Sole petitioner died. Petitioner-2 brought on record as LRs of the deceased Sole petitioner viz.Arumuga padayachi vide court order dated 04/07/2023 made in CMP Nos.12449,12455,2462 /2022 in CRP No.2009 of 2014

¶10

..Petitioner(s)

¶11

¶12

PONNAMBALAM - died

¶13

Sarala(died)

¶14

Maragatham

¶15

Minor Parasuraman Rep by Guardian Uncle Lakshmanan Vandipalayam Village, Ulundurpet Taluk Sole Petitioner Died. Respondent-4 brought on record as LRs of the deceased Sole Petitioner Viz Arumuga padayachi Respondent-4 Minor rep by Guardian uncle Lakshmanan vide court order dated 04/07/2023 made in CMP No.12463 of 2022 in CRP No.2009 of 2014 (Recorded)

¶16

P.Thirumeni

¶17

Respondent-2 Died. Respondent-5 is brought on record as LRs of the deceased R-2 Viz.Sarala

¶18

__________ Page1 of 8

¶19

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

¶20

CRP No. 2009 of 2014

¶21

vide court order dated.06/09/2024 made in CMP No.12945 of 2024 in CRP No.2009 of 2014

¶22

..Respondent(s)

¶23

Respondent - 1 Died. R2- LRS of the deceased first respondent viz., Ponnambalam as per the memo dated 15.10.2015 is recorded and vide court order dated 14.06.2019 made in CRP 2009/2014.

¶24

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal orders dated 28.10.2013 passed in I.A.No.622 of 2012 in O.S.No.63 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Villupuram.

¶25

For Petitioner(s): M/s.R.Meenal For Respondent(s): R1 And R2 - Died (steps Taken) R-3 – Served – No appearance R-4 Minor Parasuraman – No appearance (R4 – Minor Rep.by Uncle Lakshmanan)

¶26

R5 – Not ready in notice

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal orders dated 28.10.2013 passed in L.A.No.622 of 2012 in O.S.No.63 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Villupuram.

¶29

2. Heard M/s.R.Meenal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶30

__________ Page2 of 8

¶31

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

¶32

CRP No. 2009 of 2014

¶33

The petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance, in which he had earlier taken an application in I.A. No.1240 of 2004, in which an injunction was granted. However, recording a compromise between the parties, the said petition was closed. The defendants in the suit had also taken out an application seeking a direction to the plaintiff to deposit the amount towards consideration before the Court, failing which, the suit may be dismissed. The petitioner had also taken out an application in I.A. No.358 of 2005 to reopen the injunction application, which was closed. Both the aforesaid Interlocutory Applications were dismissed by the Court, against which the plaintiff as well as the defendants had approached this Court in C.R.P.No.859 and 937 of 2005 respectively. The said revision petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 21.11.2006, recording a joint memo of compromise filed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶34

The said joint memo of compromise dated 21.11.2006 had recorded that the plaintiff was ready and willing to deposit the balance of the sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- and the defendants had also agreed to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on such deposit, which was also indicated to be made on or before 05.12.2006. The said revision was again listed on 21.11.2006 under the caption "For Being Mentioned" to record the compliance of the order.

¶35

Page3 of 8

¶36

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

¶37

CRP No. 2009 of 2014

¶38

When the matter was listed on 21.11.2006, this Court had passed the following order made in C.R.P. Nos. 859 and 937 of 2005:

¶39

“These petitions having been posted on the Twenty Sixth day of February, 2007 under the caption “Being Mentioned” subsequent to the order of this Court dated 22.11.2006 and made herein and in the presence of the aforesaid advocates, the Court mode the following Order:

¶40

By a common order dated 21.11.2006, both the CRPs were disposed of on the filing of a Joint Memo of Compromise entered between the parties. Today, both the CRPs were taken up for being mentioned and for reporting compliance. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that they have already complied with the earlier undertaking given by them in the Joint Memo of Compromise and to prove the same the learned counsel also produced a xerox copy of the payment receipt for the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- issued by the Principal Subordinate Court, Villupuram. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff has to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent as agreed in the Joint Memo of Compromise, if it is not done, so far. The above proceedings are recorded and no further orders are necessary in the CRPS.”

¶41

This Court had specifically recorded that the payment of Rs.1,50,000/-

¶42

as agreed under the compromise memo by the plaintiff to the credit of the suit,

¶43

had been made and had specifically held that it is clear that the sale deed has to

¶44

Page4 of 8

¶45

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

¶46

CRP No. 2009 of 2014

¶47

be executed and what remains is only the execution of the sale deed.

¶48

After the order passed by this Court on 21.11.2006, the defendants

¶49

seem to have been taken out an application to dismiss the suit on the ground of failure of the plaintiff to honour the joint memo of compromise that was filed before this Court. The said Interlocutory Application also seems to have been dismissed, in which the third petitioner had died and an application to implead the fourth petitioner as the legal heir of the deceased third petitioner seems to have been taken and the same had been allowed for effective adjudication of I.A. No. 103 of 2007.

¶50

In this context, it is to be noted that the Interlocutory Application filed in I.A. No. 103 of 2007 had been taken out to dismiss the suit on the sole ground that the plaintiff had failed to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- before 05.12.2006, after the joint memo recorded by this Court.

¶51

It is imperative to note that this Court, in its order dated 21.11.2006, had specifically recorded the fact that the deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- had been made, which had been substantiated by production of a payment receipt for the said amount before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, and the same had also been acknowledged by the learned counsel for the defendants, who are the petitioners therein. In fact, the Court has also recorded a fact that it

¶52

Page5 of 8

¶53

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

¶54

CRP No. 2009 of 2014

¶55

is only the defendants, who have to now execute the sale deed pursuant to the deposit of the sale consideration based upon the joint memo of compromise. This itself would indicate that the dispute had been settled between the parties. which had been recorded by this Court. The subsequent events that had been recorded after filing of the application in I.A. No.103 of 2007 have not been taken note of by the trial Court and the suit itself ought to have been disposed of based upon the orders of this Court made on 26.02.2007.

¶56

In such view of the matter, the order impugned in this revision petition stands set aside and there shall be a direction to the Sub Court, Ulundurpet, to which, the suit in O.S.No.63 of 2004, which had been pending on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram has now been transferred in O.S.No.174 of 2018, which is pending before the Sub-Court, Ulundurpet to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶57

01-04-2026

¶58

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶59

kak

¶60

__________ Page6 of 8

¶61

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

¶62

CRP No. 2009 of 2014

¶63

¶64

1.The Additional Sub Court, Villupuram.

¶65

2.The Sub Court, Ulundurpet.

¶66

__________ Page7 of 8

¶67

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

¶68

CRP No. 2009 of 2014

¶69

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶70

kak

¶71

CRP No. 2009 of 2014

¶72

01-04-2026

¶73

__________ Page8 of 8

¶74

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Fair and decreetal orders dated 28.10.2013 passed in I.A.No.622 of 2012 in O.S.No.63 of 2004, challenged in this Civil Revision Petition¶24
Additional Sub Court, Villupuram · 28.10.2013
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff (petitioner herein) filed suit O.S.No.63 of 2004 for specific performance; injunction application I.A.No.1240 of 2004 granted, later closed recording a compromise between the parties.¶33
Prior proceeding
Defendants sought a direction to the plaintiff to deposit the consideration amount before the Court failing which the suit be dismissed; plaintiff's I.A.No.358 of 2005 to reopen the injunction application was closed; both interlocutory applications were dismissed, leading to C.R.P.Nos.859 and 937 of 2005 by the plaintiff and defendants respectively.¶33
Prior proceeding
C.R.P.Nos.859 and 937 of 2005 disposed of by common order dated 21.11.2006 recording a joint memo of compromise: plaintiff to deposit balance sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 05.12.2006 and defendants to execute sale deed on such deposit.¶34
Prior proceeding
Compliance reported when the CRPs were next taken up ('Being Mentioned'): xerox copy of payment receipt for Rs.1,50,000/- issued by the Principal Subordinate Court, Villupuram produced; proceedings recorded, no further orders found necessary.¶40
Prior proceeding
Defendants thereafter sought dismissal of the suit for alleged failure of the plaintiff to honour the joint memo; that interlocutory application was dismissed; on death of a party, impleader of the legal heir was allowed for effective adjudication of I.A.No.103 of 2007.¶49
Prior proceeding
I.A.No.103 of 2007 sought dismissal of the suit solely on the ground that the plaintiff failed to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- before 05.12.2006 after the joint memo recorded by this Court.¶50
Prior proceeding
Suit O.S.No.63 of 2004, earlier pending before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, has been transferred to the Sub Court, Ulundurpet and renumbered O.S.No.174 of 2018, where it remains pending.¶56

Arumuga Padayachi(Died) v. Ponnambalam - died

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumuga Padayachi(Died) v. Ponnambalam - died

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Mahalingam Vs The Principal Secretary

R. Thillai Govindan Vs R. Sujatha

The Divisional Manager Vs S.Gayatri

S.Raffela Vs Ganeshbabu

N. Devaraj Vs v. Ranganathan

Leslie Martin Vs M.Krishnamoorthy