CRP/1487/2026 of K.Kannappa Valliappan Karunamoorthy (Died),1.V.Meg Vs K.P.Kadieswaran on 16 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

CRP.No.1487 of 2026 has been filed seeking to set aside the order in E.P.No.1770 of 2025 in O.S.No.700 of 2023 dated 24.02.2026 on the file of the X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. CRP 5691 of 2026 has been filed, challenging the order in IA.No.6 of 2026 in OS.No.700 of 2023 on the file of the XX Additional Sessions Court, Allikulam, Chennai.

3. CRP.No.5693 of 2026 has been filed, challenging order in IA.No.5 of 2026 in O.S.No.700 of 2023 dated 21.08.2026 on the file of the XX Additional Sessions Court, Allikulam, Chennai.

4. CRP.No.5695 of 2026 has been filed, challenging the order in I.A.No.4 of 2026 in O.S.No.700 of 2023 dated 21.08.2026 on the file of the XX Additional Sessions Court, Allikulam, Chennai.

5. I have heard Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar for Mrs.Meenakshi, learned counsel for the revision petitioners in all the revision petitions and Mr.A.P.Loganathan, learned counsel for the respondent in all the revision petitions.

6. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners are referred to as the legal heirs of the deceased defendant and the respondent is referred to as the plaintiff.

7. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.700 of 2023, for specific performance of an agreement of sale, allegedly entered into by the deceased defendant with the plaintiff on 27.09.2023. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 27.09.2023 and an execution petition was filed in E.P.No.330 of 2024 for execution of the sale deed. The same was allowed on 25.08.2025 and admittedly, the sale deed has

been executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereafter filed a second execution petition in EP.No. 1770 of 2025, for recovery of possession from the deceased defendant. It is at that stage that the legal representatives of the deceased defendant filed various interlocutory applications, one before the Executing Court and three before the Trial Court. All the applications filed by the legal representatives, as proposed defendants, were dismissed, as against which, the present revision petitions have been filed.

8. Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would firstly contend that the defendant, though had suffered an ex-parte decree, admittedly died pending the execution petition on 07.12.2024. Inviting my attention to the typed set of papers, Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar would contend that the death of the sole defendant was duly intimated to the respondent/plaintiff, who is in fact a friend of the deceased defendant. She would however point out to the fact that the chat history was conveniently cleared by the respondent/plaintiff to erase all evidence with regard to the factum of the death of the defendant being brought to the notice of the respondent/plaintiff.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further state that in any event, the present execution petition is still being proceeded against the deceased defendant and when interlocutory applications in I.A.Nos. 4, 5 & 6 of

2026 were duly filed for condonation of delay and to implead the petitioners as legal representatives of the sole defendant, the Trial Court has erroneously dismissed all the applications. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would further state that the petitioners were not even parties and therefore, the question of attributing deliberate delay on their part, can never arise. She would further state that it is the respondent, who has suppressed the factum of the death of the sole defendant and mischievously proceeded to pursue the execution petition and attempted to dispossess the petitioners, who are admittedly in possession. The learned counsel for the petitioners would therefore pray for the revision petitions being allowed and a fair opportunity being granted to the petitioners to contest the suit on merits.

10. Per contra, Mr.A.P.Loganathan, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would state that the petitioners are very much residing in the suit property and they were fully aware of the proceedings initiated against the deceased defendant and therefore, it cannot be contended by them that since they were not parties, the proceedings cannot be initiated against them. Inviting my attention to the findings of the Trial Court, Mr.A.P.Loganathan, learned counsel would state that the Court has rightly found that the order to condone the delay is discretionary and the Court has rightly found that the conduct of the petitioners clearly exposed deliberate inaction and lack of diligence on their part in pursuing the matter and the orders therefore do not require any interference.

11. Mr.A.P.Loganathan, learned counsel for the respondent would further state that the respondent had already obtained the sale deed from the Court and on the verge of getting vacant possession in the execution petition and the decree in favour of the respondent should not be defeated by such vexatious attempts made by the legal representatives of the defendant.

12. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

13. The case of the revision petitioners in all the affidavits, three before the Trial Court and one before the Executing Court, were that the death of the sole defendant was duly informed to the respondent/plaintiff, who was in fact a very close friend of the defendant himself and gaining undue advantage, the respondent/plaintiff has not brought the death of the defendant to the notice of the Court and has proceeded with the execution petitions against a dead person and even the order of delivery has been obtained only against the defendant, without even impleading the legal representatives.

14. No doubt, the decree has been passed ex-parte and on the date of decree, the defendant was very much alive. However, subsequently, when the execution petition came to be filed, he was not alive. It is contended by the

learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent/plaintiff was put on notice about the death of the sole defendant, though Mr.A.P.Loganathan, learned counsel for the respondent denies the said contentions put forth by Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar.

15. On going through the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/plaintiff to the application filed by the revision petitioners, I find that there is no specific denial of the averment made by the petitioners that copy of the death certificate was given to the respondent/plaintiff and he was also informed about the death of the defendant by a whatsapp message. Without specifically denying the categorical assertion made by the petitioners, the respondent merely states that the petitioners have not produced documents to support such contentions. In any event, the fact remains that as on date though a sale deed has been executed by the Court, on behalf of the defendant, however possession still remains with the legal representatives of the defendant, who are the revision petitioners and they have not even been impleaded in the execution petition and by dismissing their applications to condone delay and to implead themselves in the suit as legal representatives of the defendant, the Court has virtually given a seal of approval for the plaintiff/decree holder to proceed with the execution petition as against a dead person.

16. Even in the execution petition, I find that the revision petitioners have not been initially impleaded. However, to an order dated 05.01.2026 in EA.No.2 of 2026, they have been impleaded as judgment debtors 2 to 5. In so far as the order of delivery, the Executing Court has merely proceeded to order delivery, on the ground that the ex-parte decree has not been set aside and that the sale deed has already been executed by the Court on 06.08.2024. The defendant died only on 07.12.2024 and therefore, when the execution petition for delivery of possession was initially filed against the defendant, the defendant was not even alive and in all fairness, the respondent/decree holder ought to have reported the death of the defendant to the Court and impleaded the legal representatives on his own accord.

17. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the defendant never intended to dispose of the property and it was only a financial transaction and the agreement was executed as security for repayment. It is also contended that the property is very valuable and the sale consideration reflected in the agreement of sale is far far below even the then prevailing market value as well. Unfortunately, the Trial Court has cast the burden upon the legal representatives of the deceased, judgment debtor for informing the Court about the death of the judgment debtor. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they were never impleaded or put on notice in the execution proceedings. On the contrary, it is their specific case that the mother of the deceased had specifically put the

respondent/plaintiff on notice about the death of the defendant. Prima facie, documents are also made available in the typed of the papers to evidence the said fact and also the factum of chat history being cleared by the respondent/plaintiff. Excepting for a general denial, there is no specific denial of such categorical assertions made by the petitioners in this regard. In the light of the above, I am inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Trial Court.

18. In fine, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, in the following manner:

(i) The ex-parte decree in O.S.No.700 of 2023 dated 27.09.2023 on the file of the XX Additional Sessions Court, Allikulam, Chennai, is set aside and the applications in I.A.Nos.No.6, 5 & 4 of 2026 in O.S.No.700 of 2023 dated 21.08.2026 on the file of the XX Additional Sessions Court, Allikulam, Chennai, are allowed.

(ii) The petitioners shall be impleaded as defendants 2 to 5 in the suit and they shall be called upon to file a written statement, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order;

(iii) The Trial Court shall frame issues within a period of two weeks thereafter and shall endeavour to dispose of the suit, within a period of six months from the date of framing of issues;

(iv) In view of the fact that the sale deed has already been executed, I do

not intend to disturb the sale at this juncture;

(v) The result of the suit for specific performance shall in any way have a bearing on the sale deed already executed by the Court and in the event of the respondent succeeding in the suit for specific performance, then it is needless to state that the sale deed already executed by the Court will stand validated and the revision petitioners shall be obligated to vacate and hand over vacant possession as may be directed by the Trial Court. However, in the event of the suit for specific performance being dismissed after trial, then the Trial Court shall issue suitable directions for cancellation of the sale deed already executed by the Court pursuant to the ex-parte decree passed in the suit for specific performance.

(vi) There shall be no order as to costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA

P.B.BALAJI J. ATA To The XX Additional Sessions Court, Allikulam, Chennai. CRP Nos.1487, 5691, 5693 & 5695 of 2026 16-10-2026