M.Sheik Farith Mohideen vs Muhammad Umare Farook
2021 Latest Caselaw 9431 Mad

                                                             1        A.S.(MD)NO.103 OF 2012

                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED: 09.04.2021

                                                     CORAM

                        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                           A.S.(MD)No.103 of 2012 and
                                              M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012


                     1.    M.Sheik Farith Mohideen
                     2.    M.Abdhul Rahman
                     3.    Sulaima Nasima
                     4.    Ajisal
                     5.    Alimal Beevi           ... Appellants/Defendants 2 to 6



                                                       Vs.


                     1. Muhammad Umare Farook
                     2. Muhammad Usman                       ... Respondents/Plaintiffs



                                   Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of C.P.C.,
                     against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.68 of 2010
                     dated 12.07.2012 on the file of the fourth Additional District
                     Court, Tirunelveli.


                                   For Appellant   : Mr.H.Arumugam
                                   For Respondent : Mr.P.Thiagarajan

                                                      ***




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                     1/4
                                                             2        A.S.(MD)NO.103 OF 2012

                                                 JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. Defendants 2 to 6 are the appellants in this appeal.

The respondents herein filed O.S.No.68 of 2010 on the file of

the IV Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, for recovery of a

sum of Rs.1,01,500/- from the defendants towards rental

arrears. The said suit was decreed on 12.07.2012. Challenging

the same, this first appeal came to be filed.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, it is

submitted that the defence of the appellants was that the

relationship of landlord and tenant no longer exists and that

the appellants have right over the property in question under

a sale agreement. The appellants filed suit for specific

performance of the sale agreement. But then, the judgment

and decree in the said suit went against the appellants and the

same was confirmed right up to the Supreme Court.

4. Since the appellants' prayer for specific

performance had been negatived, nothing may really survive https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

3 A.S.(MD)NO.103 OF 2012

for consideration. It is also stated that the appellants had

already deposited the decreetal amount before the trial Court.

The Judgment passed by the trial Court is confirmed. This

appeal suit is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

                                                                              09.04.2021

                     Index    : Yes / No
                     Internet : Yes/ No
                     PMU

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To:

1. The IV Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.

2. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

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

4 A.S.(MD)NO.103 OF 2012

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

PMU

A.S.(MD)No.103 of 2012

09.04.2021

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