K.Selvarajan v. Amuthasurabi Educational Trust,having its registered office atChinnamudalaipatti Post,Namakkal

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 04.02.2026CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJIA.S.No.80 of 2026& CRP.Nos.409 & 411 of 2026& CMP.Nos.2336, 2326, 2697 & 2704 of 2026A.S.No.80 of 2026:K.Selvarajan..AppellantVs.

Amuthasurabi Educational Trust, having its registered office at Chinnamudalaipatti Post, Namakkal Taluk and District, represented by itsManaging TrusteeSmt.M.Tamilarasi and Secretary-cum-TrusteeThiru M.Gopumadhavan.

P.Kandasamy3.M/s.Raja Auto Finance,L.S.Building, No.151-A6 Salem Road, NamakkalRepresented by its Managing Partner...RespondentsPrayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.55 of 2025 dated 22.04.2025 passed by the Principal District Court, Namakkal, decreeing the suit for partition in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For Appellant: Mr.J.UmacharanFor Respondents: Mr.R.Ramaguru for R1CRP.Nos.409 & 411 of 2026:Venugopal..Petitioner in both CRPsVs.1.Amuthasurabi Educational Trust, registered office atNo.5/120-1, N.G.G.O’s Colony, Chinnamudalaipatti Post, Namakkal Taluk and District, represented by its Managing TrusteeM.Tamilarasi and Secretary-cum-TrusteeM.Gopumadhavan S/o. C.P.MarimuthuNo.139 E, Salem Road, Namakkal Post and District.2.K.Selvarajan3.P.Kandasamy4.M/s.Raja Auto Finance, Represented by its Managing Partner,L.S.Building, No.151-A6 Salem Road, Namakkal...Respondents in both CRPsCommon Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 28.01.2026 in Unnumbered I.A in O.S.No.55 of 2025, decreed on 22.04.2025 and consequential direction to number the Unnumbered I.A, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal. For Petitioner: Mr.S.Mukunth Senior Counsel for Mr.M.GuruprasadFor Respondents: Mr.R.Ramaguru https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis COMMON JUDGMENTThe appeal suit and the revision petitions are taken up together. 2. The 1st defendant in O.S.No.55 of 2025 is the appellant in A.S.No.80 of 2026. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed a suit, seeking permission to sell the properties belonging to the plaintiff/Trust to the appellant, in terms of an agreement dated 11.09.2023 or to any other buyer in the event of the appellant failing to co-operate, to complete the sale, in order to discharge the loans availed by the plaintiff from the defendants 2 and 3.

The suit came to be decreed by the Principal District Court, Namakkal on 22.04.2025. Advocate Commissioners have been appointed by the trial Court to go ahead with the sale of the properties belonging to the plaintiff/Trust. Challenging the denial of the right of the appellant to purchase the property, the appeal suit has been preferred.

Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred at the instance of the third parties, who intends to participate in the public auction, in order to purchase the immovable properties belonging to the plaintiff/Trust. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Today, however, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed a memo, stating that the plaintiff is intending to withdraw the suit itself. As the Trust is now not desirous of selling its immovable properties and that the purposes for which the properties were sought to be sold, in respect of which, permission was sought for no longer subsists on account of the dues of the defendants 2 and 3 having been settled, without a requirement to sell the properties of the Trust. As plaintiff, there can be no impediment for the plaintiff, who has approached the Court, to seek withdrawal of the suit at any point of time, despite the suit being at the appellate stage. Today, the only prejudice that can be caused is to the appellant. However, the appellant has also made an endorsement that in view of the plaintiff withdrawing the suit, he also seeks for withdrawal of the appeal.

Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in the civil revision petitions would however state that the request of the appellant, as well as the plaintiff is clearly collusive in nature and only in order to defeat the rights of the intending prospective purchasers, like the revision petitioners. He would also state that the plaintiff/Trust is a public charitable trust and therefore, the Court, being the custodian, should not permit any such collusion.