Madras High Court
R.Karthikeyan vs N.Oveyam Ranjan on 2 January, 2023
C.R.P.No.3177 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.No.3177 of 2019
R.Karthikeyan
represented by his Power of Attorney
B.Ragothaman ... Petitioner
Vs
1. N.Oveyam Ranjan
2. C.Arasu ... Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to set aside the order dated 06.07.2019 passed by the III Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee in C.M.A.No.14 of
2014, thereby confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 02.04.2014
passed in I.A.No.683 of 2010 in O.S.No.151 of 2010 on the file of the Sub
Ordinate Judge, Poonamallee.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kempraj
For R1 : Mr.U.Venkatesan
for Mr.M.Gnanasekar
For R2 : Mr.M.Stalin
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3177 of 2019
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order
dated 06.07.2019 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruvallur at Poonamallee in C.M.A.No.14 of 2014, thereby confirming the
fair and decreetal order dated 02.04.2014 passed in I.A.No.683 of 2010 in
O.S.No.151 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Ordinate Judge, Poonamallee,
thereby dismissing the petition seeking injunction restraining the second
respondent herein from executing the decree passed in O.S.No.113 of 2004
dated 12.04.2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.151 of 2010 for
declaration declaring that the exparte decree dated 12.04.2010 passed in
O.S.No.113 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee as vitiated by
fraud and collusion. The petitioner also prayed for a permanent injunction
restraining the second respondent herein from executing the exparte decree in
O.S.No.113 of 2004. Pending suit, the petitioner filed an application for
temporary injunction and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3177 of 2019
petitioner also preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.14 of 2014 and the same was
also dismissed. Hence, this revision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner filed a suit challenging the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.113 of
2004 dated 12.04.2010. If the said decree is executed, the main suit itself
would become infructuous. Therefore, an interim injunction is very much
required restraining the second respondent herein not to execute the same.
4. Heard both sides.
5. A perusal of records revealed that the first respondent herein
entered into an agreement for sale with the second respondent on 30.05.2001
and agreed to sell the subject property in favour of the second respondent.
The subject property was originally allotted in favour of the first respondent
by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and he was issued allotment order and also
executed lease cum sale agreement in favour of the first respondent. On the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3177 of 2019
strength of the said allotment order and lease cum sale agreement, the first
respondent entered into an agreement for sale with the second respondent,
even before execution of any sale deed in his favour. However, the first
respondent disturbed the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said
property and as such the second respondent was constrained to file a suit in
O.S.No.65 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur.
6. Pending suit, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board executed a sale
deed in favour of the first respondent in respect of the suit property. On the
strength of the said sale deed, the first respondent executed a Power of
Attorney in favour of one M.Nithyanandam on 01.03.2006. In turn, the said
Power of Attorney executed a sale deed on the same day in respect of the suit
property in favour of the petitioner herein. In the meanwhile, after execution
of sale deed in favour of the first respondent by the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board, the second respondent withdrew the suit filed by him in O.S.No.65 of
2004, for permanent injunction with liberty to file a suit for specific
performance in respect of the suit property. Accordingly, he had withdrawn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3177 of 2019
the suit in O.S.No.65 of 2004 and filed a suit in O.S.No.113 of 2004 on the
file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee for specific performance. On receipt of the
summons in the said suit, the first respondent failed to contest after filing
written statement before the Trial Court and as such he was set exparte.
Thereafter, the said suit was decreed by the Judgment and decree dated
12.04.2010 in O.S.No.113 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee.
7. Even on the date of the agreement for sale, i.e, 30.05.2001, the
second respondent was in possession of the suit property. On the strength of
the sale deed, the petitioner herein filed a present suit for declaration
declaring that the decree passed in O.S.No.113 of 2004 dated 12.04.2010 as
vitiated. The petitioner also sought for permanent injunction restraining the
second respondent from executing the decree passed in O.S.No.113 of 2004
on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee. In fact, after filing the written
statement by the first respondent, he had executed a Power of Attorney in
favour of the said M.Nithayanandam on 01.03.2006. In turn, the Power of
Attorney executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3177 of 2019
8. It is seen that the petitioner purchased the property without even
verifying the possession of the property and without taking physical
possession of the property. It shows that the first respondent herein and the
petitioner colluded with each other and wantonly encumbered the suit
property by execution of Power of Attorney and Sale deed dated 01.03.2006.
Though, the petitioner purchased the suit property on 01.03.2006, he had
filed the present suit only in the year 2010 that too on receipt of the notice
from the second respondent that an execution petition has been filed in
E.P.No.62 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee. During lis
pendence, the petitioner purchased the suit property. However, the sale deed
stands in the name of the petitioner herein in respect of the suit property and
as such the second respondent is not in a position to register the sale deed in
his favour till the disposal of the suit.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner had also filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.152 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3177 of 2019
2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur. Therefore, it would
be appropriate to direct the Trial Court to conduct a joint Trial in both the
suits and dispose of the suits in O.S.No.151 and 152 of 2010, within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after
disposal of the suit, the Trial Court is directed to proceed with the execution
petition in E.P.No.62 of 2010 filed by the second respondent to execute the
decree passed in O.S.113 of 2004.
10. It is made clear that the Trial Court shall dispose of the suits, in
the light of the above observations made by this Court and dispose of the
execution petition in E.P.No.62 of 2010, within a period of two months
thereafter. Further, it is made clear that the second respondent's possession
and enjoyment of the suit property cannot be disturbed at any cost by any
parties till the disposal of the suits.
11. With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition stands
disposed of. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3177 of 2019
02.01.2023
mn
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
To
1. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, Poonamallee.
2. The Sub Ordinate Judge, Poonamallee.
3. The District Munsif Court, Ambattur.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J,
mn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3177 of 2019
C.R.P.No.3177 of 2019
02.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
