Madras High Court
C.K.Mahalakshmi vs C.P.Venugopal on 20 November, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
O.S.A.No.354 of 2025
-----------------------------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
O.S.A.No.354 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.28043 of 2025
C.P.Kothandapani (Deceased)
1.C.K.Mahalakshmi
2.C.K.Palaniselvam
3.Gayathri ...Appellants
Vs.
1.C.P.Venugopal
2.C.P.Chandrasekaran
3.C.P.Srinivasan ...Respondents
PRAYER: This Original Side Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Madras Hihg Court Original Side
Rules, praying to set aside the order dated 25.08.2025 in A.No.2764 of 2025 in
C.S.No.976 of 2015.
For Appellants : Mr.C.V.Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.T.Srikanth
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The present Original Side Appeal has been instituted against the order
passed in a final decree application for partition and separate possession of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 12:02:15 pm )
-----------------------------
the plaintiff's 1/4th share in the property morefully described in the schedule by
metes and bounds.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the trial
Court directed both plaintiffs and defendants shall represent before the
Registration Office and proceed with execution of sale deed. In this regard the
defendants were directed to execute the sale deed by 07.10.2025.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the
appellants/ defendants have neither cooperated nor produced the original title
deeds to the respondents. Due to their non-cooperation, execution of sale is
unable to be done pursuant to the order impugned passed by the trial Court.
4. Though the appellants have expressed their willingness to exercise
their pre-emptive right and purchase the suit schedule property, they have not
complied with the time line given. Therefore, it is to be presumed that they
have no intention to purchase the property or they are incapable of paying the
value of the property.
5. It is contended that the appellants are prolonging the matter. The first
plaintiff is suffering from age related aliments and the 3rd plaintiff is also taking
treatment for cancer. Any prolongation of settlement would cause prejudice to
the interest of the plaintiffs and their family members.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 12:02:15 pm )
-----------------------------
6. Subsequently, the trial Court passed an order on 04.11.2025
recording the memo filed by the Advocate Commissioner that the procedures
are yet to be completed to conduct auction in respect of the suit schedule
property. In view of the fact that all further actions have already been initiated
pursuant to the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 in C.S.No.976 of 2015 and
considering the fact that the appellants/ defendants have neither handed over
the original title deeds nor exercised their pre-emptive right and seeking time
again and again, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Original Side
Appeal. Thus, the trial Court is requested to proceed with the auction of the
schedule property, so as to complete the proceedings in all respects enabling
the parties to enjoy their rights.
7. Accordingly, this Original Side Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S., J.) (P.D.B., J.)
20.11.2025
dsa
Internet :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 12:02:15 pm )
-----------------------------
and
P.DHANABAL, J.
dsa
20.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 12:02:15 pm )
