Madras High Court
A.B.Kumaran vs Noel Mohan Ravin on 22 September, 2022
AS(MD)No.595 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
AS (MD)No.595 of 2011 and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
A.B.Kumaran .. Appellant/
Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Noel Mohan Ravin
2.Paul Ravin .. Respondents/defendants
Prayer : Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2011 in O.S.No.131
of 2009 on the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.
For appellant : Ms.J.Anandavalli
For Respondents : Mr.M.P.Senthil for R2
No appearance for R1
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS(MD)No.595 of 2011
JUDGMENT
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
The appellant, who was the plaintiff in the suit, filed the suit seeking
for the relief of specific performance. The alternative prayer was granted by
the Court below by directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.16 lakhs
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of handing over of
the possession of the suit property to the defendants. Insofar as the relief
for specific performance is concerned, the same was rejected. Aggrieved by
the same, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal.
2.During the pendency of this appeal, the parties decided to bury the
hatchet and have entered into a compromise. The joint compromise memo
signed by the parties and their respective counsel has also been filed before
this Court. The terms of compromise is extracted hereunder:
“1.The respondents have executed a sale deed
dated 16.11.2021 (registered as Doc.No.3687/2021 on
the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Thuckalay) in favour of
the appellant in respect of the suit property viz., an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS(MD)No.595 of 2011
extent of 3 acres and 8 cents in Old Survey No.
6320/2006 correlates to RE-survey no.208 (part) of
Velimalai Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari
District, which is the subject matter of the suit in
O.S.No.131 of 2009 on the file of the District Court,
Nagercoil as well as the above appeal in A.S.no.595 of
2011.
2.In view of the execution of sale deed dated
16.11.2021 (registered as Doc.No.3687/2021 on the file
of Sub-Registrar Office, Thuckalay) the clause -2 of
decree dated 07.09.2011 passed in O.S.No.131 of 2009
on the file of learned Principal District Judge,
Kanyakumari at Nagercoil has become redundant and in
sequence there is no requirement for the respondents to
pay a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- with future interest at 9%
per annum from the date of handing over the possession.
The appellant is in possession of the above said property.
3.In respect of the property which is the subject
matter of the above appeal, a second appeal in S.A.No.
488 of 2009 is pending before this Hon'ble Court as
against the respondents. The appellant is not a party to
the same. The respondents hereby agree that they will
diligently prosecute the said S.A.No.488 of 2009, till the
said litigation reaches its finality. It is further agreed
that the appellant if so advised to a subsequent purchaser
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS(MD)No.595 of 2011
of the property, pursuant to the above compromise shall
take steps to implead himself in the second appeal in
S.A.No.488 of 2009 and the respondents will say no
objection for the same. Even in the event of the
appellant not being impleaded, the appellant hereby
agree and undertake that they will defend the said appeal
to their fullest ability.
4.Pursuant to the execution of the sale deed dated
16.11.2021, the appellant has released the
charge/security created in respect of the properties,
namely, 1.16 acres in R.S.No.H-1/12-3 Needndakarai 'A'
Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, and 10 cents in
R.S.No.G-6/1-13, Neendakarai 'A' Village,
Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, which
were given as security at the time of execution of the
agreement for sale, which are the subject matter of the
suit and the said release deed has been registered as
Doc.No.4362/2021 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office,
Thuckalay.
5.The registration of sale deed dated 16.11.2021
((registered as Doc.No.3687/2021 on the file of Sub-
Registrar Office, Thuckalay) has been completed on the
basis of the certified copy of the parent documents which
is marked as Ex.B42, 44, 45 and 46 in the suit against
which S.A.No.488 of 2009 and which is pending.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS(MD)No.595 of 2011
6.Since, the original parent documents were not
handed over to the appellant by the respondents which
are marked as Ex.B42,44, 45, and 46 in the suit against
which S.A.No.488 of 2009, both the parties herein have
entered into an agreement dated 16.11.2021 wherein
originals of the settlement deed dated 31.05.2013
executed by Paul Ravin (2nd respondent) in favour of
Noel Mohan Ravin (2nd respondent) registered as
Doc.No.1354/2013 on the file of the Sub Registrar
Office, Thuckalay has been handed over to the appellant
has been given as security and the said property is in
possession of the 2nd respondent.
7.Both the parties hereby agree that in the event of
the respondents succeeding in S.A.No.488 of 2009, the
respondents will hand over the original title deeds in
respect of the present suit properties, which are marked
as Ex.B42, Ex.B44, Ex.B45 and Ex.B46 in the suit
against which S.A.No.488 of 2009 has been filed, the
appellant shall hand over originals of the settlement deed
dated 31.05.2013 executed by Paul Ravin (2nd
respondent) in favour of Noel Mohan Ravin (2nd
respondent) registered as Doc.No.1354/2013 on the file
of Sub Registrar Office, Thuckalay immediately on the
same day.
8.Both the parties hereby agree that if the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS(MD)No.595 of 2011
respondents loose the case in S.A.No.488 of 2009 then
the sale deed dated 16.11.2021 is to be cancelled by the
respondents and the appellant will handover possession
of the suit property. The respondents hereby agree that
they will return a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- to the appellant
at the time of handing over possession of the suit
property to the respondents.
9.The parties have entered the above compromise
on their own volition without any coercion whatsoever.
10.Both the parties hereby agree that a decree may
be passed in terms of the above compromise memo.”
3. The appellant was present before this Court at the time of hearing.
Insofar as the respondents are concerned, each respondent has filed a
separate affidavit and they have confirmed the fact with regard to entering
into a compromise with the appellant. They have sought for dispensing
with their appearance at the time of hearing, since they are not in a position
to be present before this Court in person. The affidavits filed by the
respondents are admitted and acted upon.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS(MD)No.595 of 2011
4. In view of the above, this appeal is disposed of in terms of the joint
memo of compromise and the memorandum of compromise shall form part
of the decree. In view of the above compromise entered into between the
parties, there shall be a direction to refund the Court fees paid by the
appellant. No costs. consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
(J.N.B.,J.) (N.A.V.,J.)
22.09.2022
Internet : Yes
RR
To
1.The District Judge,
Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.
2.The VR Section
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS(MD)No.595 of 2011
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
RR
AS (MD)No.595 of 2011
22.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
