Madras High Court
K.Mayilvaghanan vs N.Sinduja on 7 March, 2022
S.A.No.92 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
S.A.No.92 of 2012
and
M.P.Nos.1 of 2012 & 2 of 2014
K.Mayilvaghanan ... Appellant
Vs
1. N.Sinduja
2. Sarafath Ali
(R2 impleaded as a party of respondent
vide Court order dated 30.11.2018 made
in M.P.No.1 of 2014 in S.A.No.92 of 2012) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the
Judgment and Decree dated 30.06.2011 in A.S.No.324 of 2009 on the file
of the VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, partly allowing the
Judgment and Decree dated 04.01.2008 in O.S.No.5977 of 2005 on the
file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai
For Appellant : Mr.S.Senthil Kumar
For Respondents : R1 – No appearance
Mr.S.Elam Bharathi for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/5
S.A.No.92 of 2012
JUDGMENT
The defendant is the appellant in the second appeal.
2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking for the relief of
partition and separate possession of the open trace portion over the super
structure of the ground floor and the first floor and for other
consequential reliefs.
3. The Trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and after considering the oral and documentary evidence, passed
a preliminary decree and also granted consequential relief sought for by
the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed an appeal in
A.S.No.324 of 2009 before the VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
The lower Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence, modified the Judgment and Decree of the Trial
Court and disallowed the suit insofar as relief (B) is concerned and all
the other reliefs were confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant
has filed the present second appeal.
3. When the matter was taken up for final hearing on 28.02.2022,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.92 of 2012
it was brought to the notice of this Court that the share belonging to the
appellant/defendant, which was identified as the first floor of the
property, has already been sold by the Indian Overseas Bank for
recovering the amounts due from the appellant and a sale certificate was
also issued in favour of the second respondent on 23.10.2019. That
apart, the first respondent has also executed a sale deed in favour of the
second respondent with respect to the ground floor by virtue of a
registered sale deed dated 27.04.2013. Thus there is no property left for
the appellant and the first respondent to contest this case any further
since the second respondent has became the absolute owner of the
property.
4. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, this factual
scenario was confirmed by both the sides. In view of this subsequent
development, there is nothing much to be decided in the second appeal
since the dispute between the appellant and the first respondent no longer
survives and the second respondent has already come into the picture as
the absolute owner of the property. Therefore getting into the merits of
the case will only be an academic exercise, without any fruitful result
arising therefrom.
5. In the result, the second appeal is disposed of by recording the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.92 of 2012
subsequent development wherein the second respondent is the absolute
owner of the entire suit property. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.
07.03.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
Lpp
To
1.The VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.The VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.92 of 2012
Lpp
S.A.No.92 of 2012
and
M.P.Nos.1 of 2012 & 2 of 2014
07.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
