Supreme Supreme Corporation vs Kathirasan

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 15351 Mad
Judgement Date : 15 September, 2022

Madras High Court
Supreme Supreme Corporation vs Kathirasan on 15 September, 2022
                                                                          A.S(MD)No.6 of 2012


                             BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED: 15.09.2022

                                                       CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
                                                          and
                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH


                                                A.S(MD)No.6 of 2012
                                                          and
                                                M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012


                     1.Supreme Supreme Corporation,
                       rep. by its Partner Brij Rathan Bagari,
                       No.33, Venkatasala Muthali Theru,
                       Chennai - 3.
                     2.R.R.Bagari (died)*
                     3.Gushal Bagari
                     4.Saraswathi Devi
                     5.Durga Daga
                     6.Giriraj Ratan Bagri
                     7.Brij Ratan Bagri
                     8.Sashi Lakhani
                     9.Nutan Bhattad                                  ... Appellants


                     1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   A.S(MD)No.6 of 2012


                     (Appellants 4 to 9 are brought on record as legal heirs
                     of the deceased second appellant vide Court order
                     dated, 25.07.2022 made in CMP(MD) Nos.4957 to
                     4959 of 2022)


                                                         Vs.
                     1.Kathirasan
                     2.Ismail
                     3.Roshan Banu Lalitha
                     4.K.Kasilingam
                     5.K.Pal Selvi
                     (Respondents 4 and 5 are impleaded as party
                     respondent, vide order, dated 15.06.2012 made in
                     M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2012)
                     6. Tamilselvi
                     7.M.Rajagani
                     8.V.Shanthi
                     9.K.Nehru Prakash                                         ... Respondents
                     (Respondents 6 to 9 are brought on record as
                     LRS. of the deceased 1st respondent vide Court
                     order, dated 18.03.2022 made in C.M.P(MD) Nos.
                     2128 to 2131 of 2020)

                     (9th respondent is recognised as Power Agent of
                     the respondents 6 to 8 vide Court order, dated
                     18.03.2022 made in C.M.P(MD) No.1888 of
                     2022)


                     2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    A.S(MD)No.6 of 2012


                     PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure,
                     against      the   decree      and    judgment      dated     20.08.2011       in
                     O.S.No.43 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Judge, (Fast Track
                     Court No.I), Thoothukudi.


                                   For Appellants     : Mr.P.Jayaprakash Narayan

                                   For R-1            : died

                                   For R-2            : M/s.P.Sepana @ Sree

                                   For R-3            : Mr.M.Saravanan

                                   For R-4 to R-9     : Mr.R.Pon Karthikeyan


                                                      JUDGMENT

*********** J.NISHA BANU, J.

and N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

The defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants in this appeal. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking for the relief of declaring the execution of the sale deed, dated 15.07.2008 by defendants 1 to 4 in favour of the fifth defendant as null and void and for the relief of specific performance to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.6 of 2012 sale agreement, dated 05.11.2007 and for the relief of permanent injunction.

2. The trial Court through judgment and decree, dated 20.08.2011 decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, defendants 1 to 3 filed the present appeal.

3. During the pendency of this appeal, the parties have entered into a compromise and a compromise memo signed by all the concerned parties and their counsel was filed before this Court.

4.Insofar as the second and third respondents are concerned, they do not have any subsisting interest in this case, since the second respondent joined along with appellants and sold the property in favour of the third respondent and the third respondent, in turn, sold the property in favour of the fourth and fifth respondents through a registered sale deed, dated 28.12.2011. In view of the same, the affixture of signatures of the second and third respondents in the compromise memo, fales into insignificance.

4/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.6 of 2012

5. The terms of compromise are extracted hereunder :

"1. The 6th to 9th respondents who are the legal heirs of deceased Kathiresan (1st respondent/plaintiff) have no objection in allowing the present appeal in A.S.(MD) no 6 of 2012 and setting aside the Judgment and decree dated 20.08.2011 made in O.S.No.43 of 2008 on the file of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No I, Tuticorin.

2. The 6th to 9th respondents who are the legal heirs of Late Kathiresan have given up their claim over the suit property and they accept the title and possession of the subsequent purchasers namely, Thiru.Kasilingam and Tmt.Palseivi (4th and 5th respondents) over the suit property and they will not claim any right or title, whatsoever, in any manner in respect of the suit property.

3. The Appellants have no objection for the 9th respondent namely, K.Nehruprakash to withdraw the amount of Rs.53,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Three Lakhs only) with accrued interests, deposited by his father late Kathiresan (1st respondent/plaintiff) on 10.10.2011 vide SBI challan No.147 towards balance sale 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.6 of 2012 consideration in the credit of O.S.No.43 of 2008, through lodgement schedule before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin. The deposit is lying in the State Bank of India, Beach Road Branch, Tuticorin.

4. In view of the compromise, the court fees paid by the appellants may be refunded to them. The appellants have no objection to refund the court fees in the name of 7th appellant namely, Brij Rathan Bagri."

6. In view of the above, this Appeal Suit is disposed of in terms of the compromise memo and the terms of compromise shall form part of the decree. Since the matter has been compromised between the parties, the appellants will be entitled for the refund of Court fees. No costs.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

                                                           (J.N.B.,J.)     (N.A.V.,J.)
                                                                   15.09.2022
                     Index:Yes/No
                     Internet:Yes/No




                     6/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.6 of 2012 To:

1.The Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.I), Thoothukudi.

2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

7/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S(MD)No.6 of 2012 J.NISHA BANU, J.

and N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

rm/Ns A.S(MD)No.6 of 2012 15.09.2022 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis