Madras High Court
S.Perumalsamy vs K.M.Kishore on 11 March, 2025
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
2025:MHC:664
O.S.A.No. 97 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.03.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
O.S.A.No. 97 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No. 11591 of 2024
S.Perumalsamy .. Appellant
vs
1.K.M.Kishore
2.Dr.K.Raveendar .. Respondents
Prayer : Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rule and Clause 15
of Letters Patent to set aside order dated 12.03.2024 made in A.No. 6517
of 2023 in C.S.No. 236 of 2023.
For Appellant : Ms.Preethi S Arasu
For Respondents : Mr.D.Ferdinand
for M/s. BFS Legal for R1
R2 not ready in notice
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)
This appeal is filed by the first defendant in suit. The plaintiff is R1
in this appeal and has filed C.S.No. 236 of 2023 seeking a judgment and
decree directing the first defendant (appellant herein) to render accounts
in respect of power of attorney dated 10.06.2019 duly registered as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 11:20:48 am )
document no. 4539/2019 in the office of Sub Registrar, Tambaram, direct
the defendants jointly to pay over the sale consideration of
Rs.1,36,26,739/- (Rs.99,00,000/- being the principal and Rs.37,26,739/-
being the interest at the rate of 24% per annum) and for costs.
2. Admittedly, the first respondent herein (R1) had executed a
power of attorney in respect of the property at Survey No. 24/3 ad-
measuring 0.18 acres at old No. 169, New no. 30, Peerkankaranai Village,
Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District (property / subject property). It
is the case of R1 that the appellant has sold the subject property and
colluded the consideration for the same. Since he has not paid on the
consideration to R1, the present suit has come to be instituted praying for
the relief set out in paragraph (1) supra.
3. Pending suit, the first respondent had taken an application
bearing No. 6517/2023 wherein the prayer is for a direction to the
appellant to furnish security to the tune of Rs. 1,36,26,739/-, being the
suit claim. It is in this application that the impugned order has come to be
passed by the learned Judge.
4. The learned Judge has proceeded on the admitted position
that the suit property has been sold by the appellant, which position has
been acceded to the appellant in his reply affidavit at paragraph 11
thereof. In such circumstances, we find nothing untoward in the direction
of the learned Judge for security to be furnished.
5. Though learned counsel for the appellant would seek to
advance submissions in regard to the merits of the suit claim itself, such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 11:20:48 am )
submissions would be premature at this juncture as it is for the parties to
subject themselves to trial in the course of which requisite submission
would be considered. Moreover, it would be unnecessary to consider
submissions on merits for the purpose of the present appeal as the
requisite details necessary to decide this appeal have been taken note of
us in the paragraphs supra. We reiterate that we see no reason to
intervene in order dated 12.03.2024 and confirm the same.
6. This Original Side Appeal is dismissed. The appellant is
directed to comply with the directions of learned Judge under impugned
order dated 12.03.2024 forthwith and in any event within a period of two
(2) weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
[A.S.M., J] [C.K., J]
11.03.2025
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes
ssm
To
The Original Side
Sub Assistant Registrar,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 11:20:48 am )
DR. ANITA SUMANTH.,J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN.,J.
ssm
11.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 11:20:48 am )
