Madras High Court
Sudarshan vs K.Bakthavatchalu on 2 August, 2024
C.R.P.No.4997 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.4997 of 2023
and C.M.P.No.29174 of 2023
Sudarshan ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.K.Bakthavatchalu
2.A.Krishnaveni
3.G.Govindammal
4.M.Jayalalitha
5.Dilli Bai
6.Kubendiran
7.Nagaraj
8.Rajeswari
9.R.Govindammal ... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set
aside the order and decreetal order in EP No.64/2022 in OS No.217/2019 on the file
Subordinate Judge Arakkonam dt. 01.08.2023.
For Petitioner : Ms.R.Poornima
For Respondents : Mr.K.Bakthavatchalu
Party-in-Person for R1
ORDER
This civil revision petition arises against the order and decreetal order of the
learned Subordinate Judge at Arakkonam in E.P.No.64 of 2022 in O.S.No.217 of
2009 on the file of the Subordinate Court at Arakkonam dated 01.08.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The civil revision petitioner is the legal heir of one Lingama Naidu, the fifth
defendant in the suit. He has been arrayed as the 9th judgment debtor in the
execution petition. O.S.No.217 of 2009 was originally presented before the
Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.II), Ranipet, Vellore
District as O.S.No.25 of 2005. This was a suit for partition and separate possession.
After hot contest, the suit came to be decreed on 31.10.2006.
3. Lingama Naidu, though he suffered a decree, did not file an appeal.
However, the mother and sisters of the plaintiff viz., defendants 1, 3 and 4 alone
preferred an appeal. This appeal was received before this Court as A.S.No.386 of
2007. In the said appeal, the civil revision petitioner was a party, but he did not file
any objections when the appeal was taken up for disposal on 26.02.2020. In fact,
being a stranger to the family, he could not have made an objection either.
However, it matters not because the appeal came to be disposed of, allotting the
execution petition mentioned property in favour of the first respondent therein, viz.,
the plaintiff K.Bakthavatchalu.
4. On the strength of the decree granted in the appeal, Mr.Bakthavatchalu
filed E.P.No.64 of 2022 to take delivery of item Nos.1 to 4 from the hands of the
judgment debtors 1 to 14. By an order dated 01.08.2023 the learned trial Judge,
noted that though the civil revision petitioner appeared and filed a counter, as they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
did not raise their little finger during the course of the original and appellate
proceedings, which ended in favour of Mr.V.Bakthavatchalu, he ordered delivery.
Against the said order of delivery, the present civil revision petition has been filed.
5. Heard Ms.R.Poornima for the civil revision petitioner and
Mr.Bakthavatchalu, Party-in-Person.
6. After going through the papers, I pointed out to Ms.Poornima that neither
Lingama Naidu, the predecessor-in-title of the civil revision petitioner had lost
before the trial Court nor had he filed any appeal before this Court and hence, her
client is bound by the judgment and decree. I further pointed out that this
property being allotted to K.Bakthavatchalu, he is entitled to take possession of the
same. At that stage, Ms.Poornma requested that her clients has been in possession
of the property for decades and he is willing to purchase peace.
7. Mr.Bakthavatchalu, a senior lawyer practicing in this Court, readily came
forward to settle the matter as he wanted to put an end to the litigation. He would
point out that he has been litigating for the property for over 19 years. He
submitted that the civil revision petitioner had been dragging the matter despite
having agreed to purchase the same at Rs.8500/- per cent soon after the disposal
of the appeal. Nonetheless, I took into consideration the age of the party-in-person
as well as the fact that the civil revision petitioner has been in possession of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
property for several years. I requested them to settle the matter amicably.
Mr.Bakthavatchalu requested that Rs.12,000/- per cent be fixed for the property
and he stated that he wanted a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in full quit over the claim of
execution petition mentioned property.
8. He also pointed out that Mr.Sudarshan and his brother were consistently
objecting to the transfer of patta for the property situated in S.No.319/33 at
Ulliambakkam Village, Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District. After negotiation, both
Mr.Sudarshan and Mr.Bakthavatchalu agreed that if a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is paid
as the value for the property, for which delivery has been ordered by the executing
Court, it will be treated as a closure with respect to that item of the property.
9.Therefore, I adjourned the matter to today to enable Mr.Sudarshan to
come up with the aforesaid amount. I also requested Ms.Poornima to file an
affidavit that Mr.Sudarshan will have no objection for the transfer of patta in the
name of Mr.Bakthavatchalu with respect to S.No.319/33.
10. When the matter was taken up today, Ms.Poornima had handed over a
Demand Draft bearing No.566275 drawn on Union Bank of India, Perambur branch
in the name of Mr.K.Bakthavatchalu for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The receipt of this
Demand Draft is acknowledged by Mr.Bakthavatchalu. In addition, Ms.Poornima
has filed an affidavit of Mr.Sudarshan that he will give no objection for transfer of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Patta in the name of Mr.K.Bakthavatchalu with respect to the remaining ½ share in
the Well situated at S.No.319/33. Therefore, the fears of Mr.K.Bakthavatchalu
stands allayed. The only order that has to be passed is recording the settlement
arrived at between the parties. Mr.Bakthavatchalu shall execue the sale deed in
favour of Mr.Sudarshan for the property situated at S.No.386.1 to an extent of 39
cents, Ulliambakkam Village, Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District to an extent of 39
cents. Both sides agree that the sale deed will be registered on 12.08.2024 before
the Sub Registrar Office at Arakkonam. The costs and expenses for the execution
of the sale deed will be borne by Mr.Sudarshan. It is also made clear that
Mr.Sudarshan shall appear before the Tahsildar, Arakkonam, when called for at the
time of transfer of Patta in the name of Mr.Bakthavatchalu and he shall tender his
no-objection.
11. With the above directions, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.08.2024
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
KST
To
The Subordinate Judge
Arakkonam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
KST
02.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
