Madras High Court
Seenuvasan vs S.Thirumalai on 6 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.273 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.273 of 2015
and
M.P No.1 of 2015
Seenuvasan ..Appellant
Vs.
1.S.Thirumalai
2.Pattabi ..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of
CPC, is filed against the impugned order dated 13.08.2014 passed by the
District Judge at Tiruvannamalai whereby the obstruction petition
E.A.No.4 of 2012 in E.P.No.56 of 2008 in O.S.No.64 of 2007 filed by
the appellant under Order 21, Rule 97 of C.P.C., was dismissed and
order of delivery was made in R.E.P.No.56 of 2008 in O.S.No.64 of
2007 in favour of the second respondent.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Pradeep
For Respondents : Mr.P.Jagadeesan for R2
: No representation of R1
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.273 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
JUDGMENT
The fair and decreetal order dated 13.08.2014 passed in E.A.No.4
of 2012 in E.P.No.56 of 2008 in O.S.No.64 of 2007, is under challenge
in the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly raised a
ground that the appellant is not a party to the civil suit in O.S.No.64 of
2007 which was instituted by the second respondent for specific
performance. It is contended that the appellant had no knowledge about
the decree passed in O.S.No.64 of 2007. Thus, he has no ambition to
challenge the decree passed by the competent Civil Court of law. Thus,
he has raised an objection by filing E.A.No.4 of 2012, as E.P.No.56 of
2008 was allowed in favour of the decree holder.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent
contended that the suit for specific performance decreed in favour of the
second respondent who in turn filed E.P.No.56 of 2008 which was
allowed by the Trial Court and the sale deed was also executed in his
favour. However, the fact remains that the suit for specific performance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.273 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
was decreed in favour of the second respondent on 07.02.2008 in
O.S.No.64 of 2007. The first respondent S.Thirumalai who is the
defendant in O.S.No.64 of 2007 is none other than the brother of the
appellant and along with his mother and sister, the first respondent
entered into a partition deed on 07.07.2009. With this background, the
appellant has filed E.A.No.4 of 2012 on the ground that the partition
deed was executed between the family members.
4. The Trial Court made a categorical finding that the said
partition deed dated 07.07.2009, is obviously hit by its pendency and
lack of bonafide. The appellant had not let in any oral evidence and
marked documents to substantiate his case in respect of the suit
property. Based on the fact that the appellant had not produced any
document or let in evidence established his right over the suit property,
the E.A. was dismissed.
5. This Court is of the considered opinion that prima facie the fact
admitted is that the suit in O.S.No.64 of 2007 for specific performance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.273 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
was decreed on 07.02.2008 in favour of the second respondent. The
subsequent application filed to set aside the exparte decree was also
dismissed at the condone delay stage. Thereafter, on 07.07.2009, the
first respondent along with his family members executed a partition
deed. Thus, it is obviously made clear that in order to fructify the decree,
such arrangements would have been made by the first respondent along
with the family members. There is every reason to believe that the action
of the first respondent is not bonafide.
6. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings
of the Trial Court is in consonance with the well established principles.
The idea of the litigants to prolong and protract the issues can never be
encouraged by the Courts. Once the rights are crystalised and parties are
slept over the rights for many years, then they cannot wake up and
knock the doors for the purpose of disturbing the settled rights in respect
of the decree holders. Such practices have to be deprecated. The Courts
must be cautious while entertaining such petitions filed by the litigants
in order to dilute the civil rights established in a competent Court of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.273 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
7. These being the principles to be adopted, the reasonings
furnished by the Trial Court in the present case are certainly candid and
convinced and there is no perversity as such. Thus, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court.
8. Accordingly, the fair and decreetal order dated 13.08.2014
passed in E.A.No.4 of 2012 in E.P.No.56 of 2008 in O.S.No.64 of 2007
stands confirmed and consequently, C.M.A.No.273 of 2015 stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
06.01.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
gsk
To
The District Judge,
Tiruvannamalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.273 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
gsk
C.M.A.No.273 of 2015
and
M.P No.1 of 2015
06.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
