Madras High Court
S.Kadorkajan Nadar vs Santha Satish on 23 July, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
CRP(MD). No.SR60849 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 23/07/2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
CMP(MD) No.11773 of 2025 in
CRP (MD). No.SR60849 of 2025
S.Kadorkajan Nadar
The Founder of Pon Natarajan
Educational Trust
Palayakayal Village
Eral Taluk, Tuticorin District ... Petitioner
v.
1.Santha Satish
2. Ambujam Ammal ... Respondents
PRAYER In CMP(MD) No.11773/2025: Petition filed under Section 115
of Civil Procedure Code, to dispense with the production of certified
copy of the impugned warning notice in EA No.4/202 in EP No.21/2018
in OS No.332/2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Srivaikundam dated 18.07.2025.
PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil
Procedure Code, against the warning notice for delivery of possession
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 03:54:53 pm )
CRP(MD). No.SR60849 of 2025
issued to the 2nd respondent dated 18.07.2025 in EA No.4/202 in EP No.
21/2018 in OS No.332/2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Srivaikundam.
For Petitioner : Mr.Raja Karthikeyan
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against warning notice for
delivery of possession issued to the 2nd respondent dated 18.07.2025 in
EA No.4/2025 in EP No.21/2018 in OS No.332/2002 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam.
2. The petitioner, who is a third party to the proceedings, is running
a school from the year 1989 onwards in the property in question.
Admittedly, one Ambujam and Jegadeesan are the sister and brother
respectively and they are said to be the Trust members and Ambujam has
executed a sale deed in favour of one Sathish, who is the plaintiff, in the
year 1996 vide document No.1068/1996 dated 01.11.1996 and another
document in Doc.No.652/1996 dated 08.07.1996, and on that basis, the
first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in OS No.332/2002 for declaration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 03:54:53 pm )
CRP(MD). No.SR60849 of 2025
and recovery of possession of the suit property from the 2nd respondent
herein and she was arrayed as the first defendant in the said suit and the
said Jegadeesan, who is the brother of Ambujam ammal, was arrayed as
2nd defendant in the suit. The said suit is decreed on 09.11.2004 against
which, the 2nd respondent and his brother Jegadeesan filed an appeal in
AS No.86/2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Srivaikundam. The lower
appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 30.06.2014. Against the
concurrent findings, the second respondent preferred appeal before this
Court in SA (MD) No.948/2014 and this Court has also confirmed the
judgment and decree of the courts below vide judgment dated 21.09.2017
against which, SLP came to be filed before the Apex Court, wherein also,
the same was dismissed. Subsequently, the first respondent filed
execution petition before the trial Court and the same was ordered, in
which, the petitioner filed EA No.SR3141/2023 and the same was not
taken on file, however, the trial Court issued a warning notice.
Challenging the same, the petitioner, who is the third party, is before this
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 03:54:53 pm )
CRP(MD). No.SR60849 of 2025
3. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the
respondents, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd
respondent and her brother Jegadeesan are the Trust members of the
Society and the petitioner is running an educational institution, in the
name and style of Pon Natarajan Educational Trust and without the
knowledge of the trust, the 2nd respondent alienated the property in favour
of the first respondent, which is not sustainable one and the suit property
is shown by the first respondent/plaintiff as a vacant site. However, the
building was existed prior to filing of the suit and the same has been
suppressed in the plaint and behind the back of the petitioner trust, it was
confirmed and as on date, nearly 400 students are studying in the said
school. If the buildings is delivered in favour of the first respondent,
prejudice is caused to the petitioner trust the students' education would
also get affected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 03:54:53 pm )
CRP(MD). No.SR60849 of 2025
5. I have considered the submissions and perused the materials
available on record.
6. Admittedly, the first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against
the 2nd respondent and her brother Jegadeesan in OS No.332/2002 and the
suit was decreed, which was subsequently confirmed in first appeal,
second appeal and in SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is the
grievance of the petitioner that without any knowledge of the petitioner,
the 2nd respondent has alienated the property in favour of the first
respondent. It is the specific case that when the property is a trust
property, the 2nd respondent has alienated to third party is bad in law.
However, when a question was posed to the learned counsel for the
petitioner as to whether the suit property is a trust property or individual
property, the learned counsel would state that the trust is not owned the
property and it is owned by the 2nd respondent and her brother. When the
property is not the trust property and it is sold to the plaintiff for valid
consideration and when he succeeded before the Courts of law, he is
entitled to have his property in lieu of the execution proceedings. When
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 03:54:53 pm )
CRP(MD). No.SR60849 of 2025
that being the position and when the first respondent is the owner of the
property, the trial Court has passed a warning order in the application
filed challenging the execution proceedings. When the petitioner has not
even impleaded the Trust as a respondent and when the first
respondent/decree holder is entitled to the suit property, the petitioner has
no locus-standi to question the right or title of the first
respondent/plaintiff. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
order of the trial Court. Accordingly, CMP(MD) No.11773 of 2025 is
dismissed and the Civil Revision Petition is rejected at the SR stage
itself. No costs.
23.07.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
RR
TO
1.The District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam.
2.VR Section
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 03:54:53 pm )
CRP(MD). No.SR60849 of 2025
M.DHANDAPANI,J
RR
ORDER
IN
CMP(MD) No.11773 of 2025 in
CRP (MD). No.SR60849 of 2025
Date : 23/07/2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 03:54:53 pm )
