High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 07 MAD CK 0101

K.Ashok Kumar And Others vs C.Sengodan And Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 27 July 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.N.Manjula, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
A.No. 5251 Of 2022 In Civil Suit No.247 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 675 words

R.N.Manjula, J

1.

This application has been filed by applicants / plaintiffs to direct the respondents to furnish security for the suit claim of Rs.1,25,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore Twenty Five Lakhs Only) within a short time and in the event of failure to furnish security to pass an order of attachment of the petition mentioned property before judgment.

2.

The applicants are the plaintiffs who have purchased the suit property from the first respondent / first defendant. The sale deed was executed in favour of the applicants / plaintiffs on 04.07.2018 by the second and third respondents as power agents for the first respondent. When the first applicant was about to put up a construction in the suit property, one Parameshwaran came and told that the property belongs to him. He also told that his uncle Ganesan and the first respondent Sengodan, have created some documents with some evil design and that he has also given police complaint.

3.

The first respondent himself has filed a Criminal Original Petition in connection with the said case in Crl.O.P.No.26136 of 2016 and the same was later dismissed as withdrawn. On the complaint given by Parameshwaran, the District Registrar conducted an enquiry and in his proceedings dated 14.07.2022, he recorded that some of the documents have been fraudulently registered by impersonation. One among the said documents is the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs.

4.

The Writ Petition filed by Ganesan in W.P.No.10746 of 2016 challenging the above order has also got dismissed by directing Ganesan to work out the remedy by way of filing an appeal before the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai. The Writ Appeal filed challenging the above order in W.A.No.713 of 2019 was also dismissed. The appeal filed by Ganesan challenging the order of the District Registrar dated 29.02.2016 was taken up for enquiry by the Inspector General of Registration on 23.09.2019. However, the said Ganesan has not pressed his application by stating that a civil case has been filed in O.S.No.103 of 2018 against Parameshwaran.

5.

Since the 1st respondent / first defendant who is the vendor of the plaintiffs did not pass clear title in favour of the plaintiffs as undertaken by them, the plaintiffs have filed a suit for recovery of the sale price along with the registration charges, loss suffered and subsequent interest.

6.

The learned counsel for the defendants vehemently claimed that the plaintiffs had not chosen to implead the vendors of the 1st defendant against whom also Parameshwaran had made allegations. He further submitted that if the civil suit between Parameshwaran and Ganesan and the 1st defendant goes against Parameshwaran, the clog with the plaintiffs will get cleared and hence, there is no necessity to call for the 1st defendant to furnish security.

7.

So far as the applicants / plaintiffs are concerned, the 1st defendant is their vendor. It is the vendor who had to make good the defect in title. The dispute, if any, between the 1st defendant and his vendor has to be resolved by the 1st defendant himself. Though the civil suit was pending, the Registration Department has made an endorsement that the plaintiffs' sale deed cannot be acted upon. In such case, the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case and they have a cause of action to file the suit for recovery of money.

8.

Since there are enough materials to show that there is a serious defect in the title and that was not resolved by the 1st defendant, the 1st respondent / 1st defendant has to furnish security as claimed by the applicants / plaintiffs. Therefore, the 1st respondent / 1st defendant should be called upon to furnish security for the suit claim of Rs.1,25,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Five Lakhs Only).

9.

Therefore, this application is allowed and the 1st respondent / 1st defendant is directed to furnish security for the suit claim of Rs.1,25,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Five Lakhs Only) on or before 16.08.2023. Failing which, the petition mentioned property shall be attached before Judgment.