L.Deenadayalan v. L.Anantharaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY O.S.A.No.102 of 2019 & C.M.P.No.9645 of 2019 & C.M.P.No.22683 of 2019 L. Deenadayalan ... Appellant Vs.
1. L. Anantharaman
2. L. Janarthanan
3. Jayashree Janarthanan
4. pavithra Rajamurugan
5. Anusuya J.Komaleswari
6. Sindhuja Sathishkumar ... Respondents Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Order 36, Rule I of the Original Side Rules, read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the fair and decreetal order dated 27.3.2019 passed in A.No.1914 of 2019 in A.No.6734 of 2018 in C.S.No.433 of 2014.
For Appellant : Mr. Munusami Anandaraj For Respondents:Mr. I. Lakshmana Sankar, for R1 Mr. Raja, for R2 to R6
O R D E R
(Delivered by Dr.Vineet Kothari, J.) In the present Original Side Appeal, on the last occasion on 09.09.2020, the following order is recorded by this Court, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsels.
'Heard Mr. Munusamy Anandraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Mr.
Deenadayalan, Mr.
I.Lakshmana Shankar, learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent-L.
Anantharaman and Mr.P.Raja, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2,3 and 6 viz., L. Janarthanan, Jayashree Janarthanan and Sindhuja Sathishkumar respectively.
2. Mr. Munuswamy Anandaraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Mr. Deenadayalan, submitted that the Appellant is ready to give away the vacant possession to the extent of 2/3rd of share of A schedule property, in which, the business of monumental undertakings under the name of 'John Fenn and Company' is carried on, leaving the 1/3rd portion, which belongs to him as per Decree in partition suit as one of the three brothers.
3. He further submitted that the said 2/3rd portion may be put to public auction and sale proceeds of which, may be divided between the two brothers, plaintiff-Anantharaman (U.S.A.) and other co-defendant - L.Janardhanan and his family members who are other respondents viz., Jayashree Janarthanan, Pavithra Rajamurugan, Anusuya J.Komaleswari and Sindhuja Sathishkumar who are wife and daughters of Janarthanan and the sale proceeds may be divided between two of them equally and the appellant may be allowed to retain his 1/3rd share of the A schedule property, with which, he is sentimentally attached as the property in question was constructed by his father namely, Mr.Loganathan Naicker.
4. He further submitted that as far as B schedule property is concerned, the two brothers, (Appellant Deenadayalan and 2nd respondent Janarthanan and his family ) are presently residing in the said property, the Appellant Deenadayalan on the ground Floor and Mr. Janarthanan and his family on the first floor of the said B Schedule property.
5. Mr. Munusamy Anandraj, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant -Deenadayalan, Mr. I. Lakshmana Shankar, learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent - Anantharaman and Mr.P.Raja, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2,3 and 6 namely, L. Janarthanan, Jayashree Janarthanan and Sindhuja Sathishkumar have agreed to the extent that they can hand
over the vacant possession of the said entire B-Schedule property to the Advocate Commissioner and the said B schedule property may be put to public auction and the sale proceeds, of which, may be divided in three equal shares among the three brothers respectively.
6. The proposal given by Mr. Munusamy Anandraj, learned counsel for the appellant-Deenadayalan appears to be fair and reasonable. However for the said proposal, both the other learned counsels Mr. I.Lakshmana Sankar appearing for the plaintiff /1st respondent-Anantharaman and Mr.
Raja, appearing for codefendants/respondents 2 to 6 pray for a short accommodation to take instructions in the matter and submit the same on the next date of hearing preferably in writing.
7. In the circumstances, list the matter on 11.09.2020 at 2.15 p.m. for physical Court hearing.'
2. The proposal given by the appellant L.Deenadayalan as recorded above in the order dated 09.09.2020 has been accepted by the other two brothers viz., L. Ananthraman and L. Janarthanan also. Their learned counsels Mr. I.Lakshmana Shankar appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.P.Raja, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 6 have filed the Memorandums to this effect in the Court along with the copies of the e-mails sent by the respective parties.
3. Both the Memorandums including the correspondences in the form of e-mails and the Map/Sketch of the properties of Schedule A and Schedule B, as described below, proposed to be divided and sold are scanned and re-produced below;
Schedule A Property: All that House and Ground with Superstructure bearing Old Door No.134, 134/1 and present Door No.649 and 650, Anna Salai, Chennai together with the Good Will of Business "M/s.John Fenn & Co.,"measuring an extent of 2970 sq.ft or thereabouts comprised in O.S.No.96, R.S.No.44/14 of Nungambakkam Village and C.C.No.217 and bounded on:
North by Malik Saheb's House,
South by Mount Road, West by House belonging to C.M.Bhoopathy Naidu. East by Superstructure belonging to SakuBai Ammal Boundaries Stated in Schedule-C of Settlement Document No.507 of 2004 As) North by Abdul Majid Saheb's House and Halima Bee's House, South by Mount Road, West by G.Lakshminarayana Naicker's House and East by Zulaika Bee's House Ammal and situate within the Registration Sub-District of Thousand Lights and Registration District of Chennai.
Schedule B Property:
All that House and Ground and Premises consisting of an Old Building bearing New No.30 (Old Door No.36) (referred to as Old Door No.41/34 (New No.30) in the Settlement Deed bearing Document No.507 of 2004), Nagappa Mudali Street, Komaleeswaranpet, Chennai, comprised in O.S.No.113, R.S.No.1342, C.C.No.111 of 21.10.1955 of Egmore Village, along with an UnDivided extent of 2533.13 sq.ft. out of Two Grounds and 200 sq.ft. (5000 sq.ft.) as per Patta issued by Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk in C.A.No.106/97-98, dated 30.04.1997 and bounded on:
North by Parthasarathy Koil House South by Elliammal's House, East by The said Street and, West by Corporation Cattle Yard and Lane and situate within the Registration SubRegistration District of Periamet and Registration District of Chennai.
4. All the three learned counsels have only submitted that the Decree may by executed in the aforesaid agreed manner and the parties may be allowed to handover the vacant possession of both the A schedule and B schedule properties in the manner agreed aforesaid by the end of 31st December 2020 and the Advocate Commissioner Mr.Parthiban may be directed to sell the divided portions, namely, the 2/3rd share of A Schedule property and entire B Schedule property in the next three months in public auction, by the end of 31st March 2021.
5. The Advocate Commissioner Mr. Parthiban already appointed by the learned Single Judge shall complete the said process of auction and submit report before this Court by the end of 15th April 2021.
6. Learned Single Judge (trial Court) is requested to supervise the implementation and execution of the aforesaid agreed order passed on the consent of all the both parties in the present Original Side Appeal and then dispose of the Civil Suit C.S.No.433 of 2014 and connected proceedings accordingly.
7. The appellant/ L. Deenadayalan, while handing over the possession of the 2/3rd property of A schedule property, will construct a wall on his 1/3rd share of property at his own cost on or before 31.12.2020 and hand over possession of the remaining 2/3rd part of the property to the Advocate Commissioner Mr. Parthiban immediately after 31st December 2020, say before 1st January 2021.
8. It is made clear that no extension of time in this regard shall be granted.
9. Both the learned counsels Mr.I. Lakshmana Shankar appearing for 1st respondent and Mr.P.Raja appearing for the respondents 2 to 6 have filed Memorandums along with the copies of the e-mails of the respective parties giving their consent to the aforesaid proposals and the scanned copies of which are re-produced above, have vouched for their authenticity.
10. We expect the said orders to be implemented and executed in true letter and spirit in a time bound manner as aforesaid.
11. We put on record the appreciation of all the three learned counsel involved in this matter, who have rightly advised the parties to put an end the dispute that arose between the three brothers, by such aforesaid mutual consent and agreement in the aforesaid manner.
12. The Original Side Appeal is, therefore, disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.9645 of 2019 & C.M.P.No.22683 of 2019 are closed. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar msr To The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras.
O.S.A.No.102 of 2019 & C.M.P.No.9645 of 2019 & C.M.P.No.22683 of 2019 MP(CO) CB(15/04/2021)