K.S.Jagadeesan vs E.Uthamarayan
2021 Latest Caselaw 13333 Mad

                                                                              S.A.No.34 of 2012


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 06.07.2021

                                                      CORAM

                                     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

                                                  S.A.No.34 of 2012

                                            (Through Video Conferencing)

                     1.K.S.Jagadeesan

                     2.S.Shanmugha Sarojini

                     3.M.Harikrishnan                                         ... Appellants

                                                         Vs.

                     1.E.Uthamarayan

                     2.Dillibai

                     3.Corporation of Chennai,
                       Rep. by Commissioner,
                       Ripon Buildings,
                       Chennai – 3.

                     4.Assistant Revenue Officer,
                       Zone VIII, Corporation of Madras,
                       Kodambakkam, Chennai.                                  ... Respondents

                               Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code,
                     1908 against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Additional District


                     ____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                     Page No 1 of 4
                                                                                    S.A.No.34 of 2012

                     Judge, Chennai (Fast Track Court No.I, Chennai) dated 30.06.2010
                     made in A.S.No.167 of 2004 set aside the Judgment and Decree of the
                     learned XII Assitant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 18.02.2004
                     made in O.S.No.2056 of 2006.


                                     For Appellants      : Mr.K.Azhagu Raman

                                     For R1 & R2         : M/s.Gayatri
                                                           for Mr.P.B.Ramanujam

                                     For R3 & R4         : Mr.M.Ganesan, Standing Counsel

                                                      JUDGMENT

This case was heard at length. However, today, the learned

counsel counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have sold

the property to the third party in the year 2003 and thereafter, the

property appears to have been transferred in favour of the subsequent

purchaser. It is submitted that the first appellant and the second

respondent are no more.

2. It is contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the

appellants continued to the possession of the suit schedule property as

was recorded in the Exhibit A11 Sale Agreement dated 04.07.1991. The

appellants who are the buyers of the property have already transferred

____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 2 of 4 S.A.No.34 of 2012

their rights of the property. According to them, the property is in

possession of third party. The respondents however dispute the same.

This is the disputed questions of fact and therefore, this Court is not

inclined to pass any Judgment and Decree on the same.

3. Therefore, this Second Appeal is closed with liberty to the

subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule property to work out their

remedy in accordance with law. No costs.

06.07.2021

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No jen

To

1. The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Chennai, Chennai.

2.The XII Assitant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai

3.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madras High Court.

____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 3 of 4 S.A.No.34 of 2012

C.SARAVANAN, J.

jen

S.A.No.34 of 2012

06.07.2021

____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 4 of 4