High Court · 2025

CS No. 1065 of 2007IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16-10-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULACS No. 1065 of 2007ANDTr . CS NO. 11 OF 20101. S.Martin S/o.Santigo No.126 Guide Mulath Salai Triplicane Chennai 5Plaintiff(s)Vs1. M/s Shifa Hospital And Research Center,Rep By Its Partner Dr. Zubeida Begum New No As 93 Old No 55 Qudie-e-millatt Saliai (triplicane) High Road Chennai-52.DR. ZUBEIDA BEGUM (Deceased)Partner M/s Shilpa Hospital Research Centre New No.93 Old No 55 Quide-e-millath Salai Triplicane High Road Chennai - 5.3.DR. AKTHER HUSSAIN (Deceased)Partner, M/s Shilpa Hospital Research Centre New No.93 Old No 55 Quide-e- https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CS No. 1065 of 2007millath Salai Triplicane High Road Chennai - 5.4.Indian BankGuindy Branch Chennai Rep By Its Manager5.Dr.Khalid Hussain,S/o.Late Akther Hussain. Residing At No.55, Triplicane High Road, Chennai - 600 005.6.Dr.Sajjad Hussain,S/O.LATE AKTHER HUSSAIN, RESIDING AT NO.55, TRIPLICANE HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 005. (Defendants 5 and 6 are brought on record as legal heirs of Deceased D2 and D3 as per order dt-15.03.2022 in A.No.525/2022).Defendant(s)Tr. CS No. 11 of 20101. Dr.Zubeida Begum (deceased)W/o.Akhther Hussain, Partners Of M/s.Shifa Hospital And Research Centre, New No.93, Old No.55, Quide-e-millath Salai, (triplicane High Road) Ch-52.Dr. Akhter Hussain (deceased)S/o. Late Mazher Hussain, Partners Of M/s.Shifa Hospital And Research Centre, New No.93, Old No.55, Quide-e-millath Salai, (triplicane High Road) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CS No. 1065 of 2007Ch-53.Dr. Khalid HussainS/o. Late Akther Hussain, No.55, Triplicane High Road, Ch-54.Dr. Sajjed HussainS/o. Late Akthar Hussain No.55, Triplicane High Road, Ch-5 (plaintiffs 3 And 4 Are Brought On Record As Legal Heirs Of The Deceased Plaintiff 1 And 2 As Per Order Dt 16.12.2021 In Appl.No.4050/2021 And Time Extended As Per Order Dt 01.02.2023 In Appl.No.581/2023)Plaintiff(s)Vs1. S.MartinS/o.Mr.Santiago, 126, Quide-e-millath Salai (triplicane High Road), Chennai-5.Defendant(s)CS No. 1065 of 2007PRAYERThe suit is filed under Order IV, Rule 1 of OS Rules r/w Order VII, Rule 1 of CPC, praying a) to direct the defendants 1 to 3 execute and register a sale deed conveying the plaint schedule property (as per the plan being attached issued by the Tahsildar, Mylapore Triplicane Taluk, Chennai 600 004) together with the building thereon, to the plaintiff after receipt of the balance sale consideration in accordance with the agreement dated 31.03.2005 on or before a date to be fixed by this Court; b)failing which the Hon'ble Court may execute and register the sale deed in respect of the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff on behalf https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CS No. 1065 of 2007of the defendants 1 to 3 c) direct the defendants 1 to 3 to deliver vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff consequently grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from alienating or encumbering or entering into agreements of sale or part with possession in respect of schedule property. Alternatively,a) the plaintiff prays that the defendants 1 to 3 refund of the advance amount of Rs.3,01,33,117/- together with further interest at 24% p.a. From date of plaint till realisation in full.b) pass an order as hon'ble court may think deem fit iin the circumstances of the case and for cost of the suit . CS No. 11 of 2010PRAYERa) for a declaration, declaring that clause 10 of the agreement for sale dated.31.3.2005 is void and unenforceable in the eye of law. b) for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, his men,agents,servants or anyone authorized by him orn through him to act in any way as per the clause 10 of the Agreement for sale dated,31.3.2005. c) for cost of the suit.CS No. 1065 of 2007For Plaintiff(s):Mr.Sam Godwinfor Mr.R.Anish KumarFor Defendant(s):Mr.Senthil Kumar for M/s.S.Sethuraman for D1 to D3 M/s.Aiyar & Dolia for D4Tr.CS No. 11 of 2010For Plaintiff(s):Mr.Senthil Kumar for M/s.Aiyar & Dolia for D4For Defendant(s):Mr.Sam Godwinfor Mr.R.Anish Kumar https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CS No. 1065 of 2007COMMON ORDEROn 04.09.2025, this Court has recorded that a settlement was arrived at between the parties in a mediation. The terms of compromise in the form of an agreement between the parties, have been signed by the parties to the compromise. As per the terms of compromise, the 1st defendant has settled the loan amount payable to the bank, and the plaintiff has given his no objection to release the title deeds deposited by the plaintiff at the time of availing the loan in respect of the suit property, evidencing the creation of equitable mortgage for the loan availed.2. Since the loan has not been paid and defaulted, the bank has taken SARFAESI proceedings, and the suit property was brought for sale through public auction. The plaintiff also participated in the auction, and he has taken the suit property subsequently in the public auction. Despite the sale certificate have been given in favour of the plaintiff, in view of the subsequent settlement between the parties, the sale certificate has not been registered so far. As the 1st defendant has settled the loan amount, the plaintiff has also given his no https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CS No. 1065 of 2007objection to the bank to give back the title deeds to the 1st defendant. In fact, the no objection certificate is directed to be given by the plaintiff through his power of attorney as per the order of this court dated 17/09/2025, for the reason stated therein.3. In the subsequent order dated 7.10.2025, it is reported to the court that the no objection certificate given by the power of attorney of the plaintiff has been handed over to the 4th defendant bank. Even though there cannot be any difficulty for the bank to return the title deeds of the 1st defendant in respect of the suit property, the learned counsel for the 4th defendant bank raised a concern that the plaintiff has filed a writ petition in WP.NO. 30604/2024 and got an order with the following observations:“2. Shri.Dolia submitted that possession could not be handed over in view of various litigations launched by the borrower and various orders passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal/Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal which were carried right up to Apex Court, but, very soon, possession will be handed over. Shri.Dolia, on instructions from Mr.Satish Kumar, Authorised Officer of Guindy Branch, states that an application has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CS No. 1065 of 2007already been filed under Section 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and hopefully, within three months, an order under Section 14 will be passed and possession could be handed over. 3. In view of the statement made by Shri.Dolia, counsel for petitioner states that petition be disposed with liberty to approach the Court if need arises.4. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly with liberty as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. “4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted today that the order in the writ petition has lost its value because the matter has been settled between the parties, and the plaintiff will not insist for possession nor for registration of the sale certificate, as he has got back the sale amount paid by him during the auction proceedings.5. As all these transactions form part of the terms of compromise entered between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and recorded by DRAT as well, there will not be any difficulty for the bank, at least now, to release the title deeds to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CS No. 1065 of 2007the 1st defendant preferably within a period of ten days.6. Taking into consideration all the issues settled between the parties, and the parties to the suit do not have any further subsisting claim between themselves except the bank is objecting to return the title deeds of the suit property to the first defendant.7. Hence the suits are disposed of as settled out of court between the parties in terms of the compromise. Consequently, 10 days time is granted to the 4th defendant to return the title deeds deposited in the bank in respect of the suit property by the 1st defendant. As the matter has been settled, the court fee paid by the plaintiffs are ordered to be refunded fully. No costs. 16-10-2025Note: Issue the order copy on 17.10.2025.jrsIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CS No. 1065 of 2007CS No. 1065 of 2007To1.M/s Shifa Hospital And Research Center,Rep By Its Partner Dr. Zubeida Begum New No As 93 Old No 55 Qudie-e-millatt Saliai (triplicane) High Road Chennai-52.DR. ZUBEIDA BEGUM (Deceased)Partner M/s Shilpa Hospital Research Centre New No.93 Old No 55 Quide-e-millath Salai Triplicane High Road Chennai - 5.3.DR. AKTHER HUSSAIN (Deceased)Partner, M/s Shilpa Hospital Research Centre New No.93 Old No 55 Quide-e-millath Salai Triplicane High Road Chennai - 5.4.Indian BankGuindy Branch Chennai Rep By Its Manager5.Dr.Khalid Hussain,S/o.Late Akther Hussain. Residing At No.55, Triplicane High Road, Chennai - 600 005.6.Dr.Sajjad Hussain,S/O.LATE AKTHER HUSSAIN, RESIDING AT NO.55, TRIPLICANE https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CS No. 1065 of 2007HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 005. (Defendants 5 and 6 are brought on record as legal heirs of Deceased D2 and D3 as per order dt-15.03.2022 in A.No.525/2022). https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CS No. 1065 of 2007Dr. R.N.MANJULA J.jrsCS No. 1065 of 2007AND CS NO. 11 OF 201016-10-2025