JUDGMENT DEBTOR/ v. S. MUKANCHAND BOTHRA * (deceased) AND HUFREPRESENTED BY MUKANCHAND BOTHRA

3S. MUKANCHAND BOTHRA * (deceased) AND HUFREPRESENTED BY MUKANCHAND BOTHRA, S/O.SRICHAND BOTHRA,NO.43/44, VEERAPPAN STREET,BOTHRA'S KARISHMA COMPLEX,SOWCARPET,CHENNAI – 600 079..RESPONDENT NO.1/ DECREE-HOLDER/CLAIMANTA. PHILIPLEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF APPU JOHN 2-B, SHOBHA APARTMENT,2ND FLOOR, OPP RAJARATHINAM STADIUM, CHENNAI - 600 008* 3. M.KARISHMA BOTHRAD/O. LATE. S.MUKANCHAND BOTHRA NO.44, VEERAPPAN STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI-600 079. * 4. M.GAGAN BOTHRAS/O. LATE.S.MUKANCHAND BOTHRA NO.44, VEERAPPAN STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI-600 079. * 5. M.SANDEEP BOTHRAS/O.LATE.S.MUKANCHAND BOTHRA NO.44, VEERAPPAN STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI-600 079. * (RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENTAS PER ORDER DATED 08.10.2020 IN A.NO.2321 OF 2020)...Respondents No.2/Judgement Debtor/Respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4This application praying that this Hon'ble court be please to implead the applicant as additional Respondent in the above E.P. No.17 of 2012A.Nos.2744 and 3511 of 2012:S. MUKANCHAND BOTHRA AND HUFREPRESENTED BY MUKANCHAND BOTHRA, S/O.SRICHAND BOTHRA,NO.43/44, VEERAPPAN STREET,BOTHRA'S KARISHMA COMPLEX,SOWCARPET,CHENNAI – 600 079..Applicant/D-H/Claimantin A.Nos.2744 and 3511 of 2012:-Vs-* 1. A. PHILIPLEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF APPU JOHN 2-B, SHOBHA APARTMENT,2ND FLOOR, OPP RAJARATHINAM STADIUM, CHENNAI - 600 008* 2. V.K.JOHNERICATTU KALLARACKAL, THAZHATHANGADY, KOTTAYAM - 686 005 * (IIND RESPONDENT, IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.6/9/2012MADE IN A.NO.3800 TO 3802/12) ..RESPONDENT/JUDGEMENT DEBTOR/L.R.in A.Nos.2744 and 3511 of 2012: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5A.No.3801 of 2012: V.K.JOHNERICATTU KALLARACKAL, THAZHATHANGADY, KOTTAYAM - 686 005 ..Applicant/Proposed Addl. Respondent-Vs-S. MUKANCHAND BOTHRA * (deceased) AND HUFREPRESENTED BY MUKANCHAND BOTHRA, S/O.SRICHAND BOTHRA,NO.43/44, VEERAPPAN STREET,BOTHRA'S KARISHMA COMPLEX,SOWCARPET,CHENNAI – 600 079..RESPONDENT NO.1/ RESPONDENT NO.1DECREE-HOLDER CLAIMANTA. PHILIPLEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF APPU JOHN 2-B, SHOBHA APARTMENT,2ND FLOOR, OPP RAJARATHINAM STADIUM, CHENNAI - 600 008* 3. M.KARISHMA BOTHRAD/O. LATE. S.MUKANCHAND BOTHRA NO.44, VEERAPPAN STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI-600 079. * 4. M.GAGAN BOTHRAS/O. LATE.S.MUKANCHAND BOTHRA NO.44, VEERAPPAN STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI-600 079. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6* 5. M.SANDEEP BOTHRAS/O.LATE.S.MUKANCHAND BOTHRA NO.44, VEERAPPAN STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI-600 079. (RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENTAS PER ORDER DATED 08.10.2020 IN A.NO.2323 OF 2020)...Respondents No.2/Respondents No.2/Judgement Debtor/RespondentThis application praying that this Hon'ble court be please to implead the applicant as additional Respondent in the Application No.2744 of 2012 in EP No.17 of 2012A.No.3802 of 2012: V.K.JOHNERICATTU KALLARACKAL, THAZHATHANGADY, KOTTAYAM - 686 005 ..Applicant/Proposed Addl. Respondent-Vs-S. MUKANCHAND BOTHRA * (deceased) AND HUFREPRESENTED BY MUKANCHAND BOTHRA, S/O.SRICHAND BOTHRA,NO.43/44, VEERAPPAN STREET,BOTHRA'S KARISHMA COMPLEX,SOWCARPET,CHENNAI – 600 079..RESPONDENT NO.1/ RESPONDENT NO.1/ DECREE-HOLDER CLAIMANT https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7A. PHILIPLEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF APPU JOHN 2-B, SHOBHA APARTMENT,2ND FLOOR, OPP RAJARATHINAM STADIUM, CHENNAI - 600 008* 3. M.KARISHMA BOTHRAD/O. LATE. S.MUKANCHAND BOTHRA NO.44, VEERAPPAN STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI-600 079. * 4. M.GAGAN BOTHRAS/O. LATE.S.MUKANCHAND BOTHRA NO.44, VEERAPPAN STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI-600 079. * 5. M.SANDEEP BOTHRAS/O.LATE.S.MUKANCHAND BOTHRA NO.44, VEERAPPAN STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI-600 079. (RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENTAS PER ORDER DATED 08.10.2020 IN A.NO.2322 OF 2020)...Respondents No.2/Respondent 2 /Judgement Debtor/RespondentThis application praying that this Hon'ble court be please to implead the applicant as additional Respondent in the Application No.3511 of 2012 in EP No.17 of 2012. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8These Applications are coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order:Applications in A.Nos.3800 to 3802 of 2012 are filed for the following reliefs:(a) Application No.3800 of 2012 in E.P.No.17 of 2012 in Arbitration Award No.1 of 2011:To implead the applicant V.K.John as additional respondent in the Execution Petition in E.P.No.17 of 2012.(b) Application No.3801 of 2012 in Application No.2744 of 2012 in E.P.17 of 2012 in Arbitration Award.1 of 2011:To implead the applicant-V.K.John as additional respondent in Application No.2744 of 2012 in E.P.No.17 of 2012.(c) Application No.3802 of 2012 in Application No.3511 of 2012 in Application No.2744 of 2012 in E.P.No.17 of 2012 in Arbitration Award No.1 of 2011:To implead the applicant as additional respondent in Application No.3511 of 2012 in E.P.No.17 of 2012. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

92. These three impleading applications originally came up for hearing before a learned Judge of this Court, in which, this Court, vide order dated 06.09.2012, allowed all these three applications. The circumstances under which the applications came to be allowed need to be stated herein for clear understanding as to how these three impleading applications have again come up for adjudication before this Court.3. The decree-holder/claimant, namely S.Mukanchand Bothra (also representing HUF), on the basis of the Award passed in his favour in Arbitration Award No.1 of 2011, had approached this Court by filing E.P.No.17 of 2012 in Arbitration Award No.1 of 2011, for execution of the said Award. On coming to know of the Award passed and the Execution Petition also having been filed, the applicant herein, namely V.K.John, who is the legal heir (son) of Late K.John, had learnt that the Award has been passed on a representation by one A.Philip, who had no connection with the subject property(ies) at all and he had no right to represent as a legal representative of Late Appu John. 4. In the above circumstances, the present three impleading applications in A.Nos.3800 to 3802 of 2012 have been filed, one for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10impleading the applicant in E.P.No.17 of 2012 in Arbitration Award No.1 of 2011, the second one is for impleading the applicant in Application No.2744 of 2012 in E.P.No.17 of 2012 in Arbitration Award No.1 of 2011. The said A.No.2744 of 2012 is filed for modification of the order dated 27.04.2012 by adjusting Rs.3 lakhs from Rs.93,50,000/- as to the payment as per order dated 27.04.2012 and to permit the decree-holder S.Mukanchand Bothra to deposit the amount in any nationalised Bank in the name of the Registrar General of this Court in the account of E.P. and thereafter to execute the sale deed and deliver possession. The third impleading application is to implead the applicant in Application No.3511 of 2012 in A.No.2744 of 2012 in E.P.No.17 of 2012 in Arbitration Award No.1 of 2011. The said A.No.3511 of 2012 is filed by the decree-holder to set aside the order dated 18.07.2012 in Application No.2744 of 2012 passed by the learned Master and permit the decree-holder to deposit the amount of Rs.89,50,000/- within 24 hours into Indian Bank, High Court Branch in the name of the Registrar General of this Court in the account of the Execution Petition. 5. It is to be noted that A.No.2744 of 2012 in E.P.No.17 of 2012 which was filed for the relief stated supra, was dismissed by the learned Master on 18.07.2012, against which, appeal was filed in A.No.3511 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 112012 in A.No.2744 of 2012 in E.P.No.17 of 2012, which is pending before this Court.6. All the aforementioned three impleading petitions were taken up for hearing earlier by this Court on 06.09.2012 as stated supra. 7. The reasons and the observations, which formed the basis for allowing the abovesaid three impleading petitions by this Court earlier, on 06.09.2012, are extracted hereunder:"6. A doubt arises in the mind of the court as to whether the said A.Philip who is the respondent in the E.P.No.17 of 2012, is the legal representative of the deceased Appu John. This is so considering the nature of proceedings against a person who is stated to be a legal heir which appears to be vague considering the orders passed by the Master.7. At this stage the legal heir of late Appu John, by name V.K.John, represented by counsel M/s.King and Partridge filed three Application Nos.3800 to 3802 of 2012 stating that he want to be impleaded as respondent in E.P.No.17 of 2012, A.No.2744 of 2012 and A.No.3511 of 2012 respectively stating that the applicant V.K.John has filed C.S.No.423 of 1995 for partition and that suit is now in the stage of evidence. In that suit the "A" schedule property is the very same property which is the subject matter of the Execution Petition No.17 of 2012.8. In paragraph 3 of the Application Nos.3800 to 3802 of 2012 it is clearly stated that the late Appu John had no legal representative by name A.Philip. The applicant V.K.John is only https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12surviving legal heir of late Appu John. He also stated that he had knowledge through another counsel in the course of the present proceedings and that is stated in paragraph 8 as follows:-"8. I respectfully submit that I came to know about the above proceedings only 28.8.2012 when my counsel M/s.King & Partridge called me and informed me about the same, and that they came to know about the above proceedings only through another counsel who happened to be present in court on 28.08.2012 when the same had been called on for hearing. I further submit that quite obviously respondent No.1 has given the name of a fictitious person as the legal representative of my uncle late Appu John, with ulterior motive and mala fide intent, and to keep these surreptitious proceedings hidden from my knowledge and attention and to knock off valuable property for a pittance." 9. Considering all these factors, though the court was first inclined to dismiss the Application No.3511 of 2012 filed by Sri.S.Mukanchand Bothra, party-in-person, in view of the serious doubt raised by the proposed party respondent, the court is inclined to pass the following order:-(1) A.Nos.3800 to 3802 of 2012 are allowed.(2) The applicant V.K.John is added as party respondent in E.P.No.17 of 2012, A.No.2744 of 2012 and A.No.3511 of 2012 respectively.(3) Registry to make necessary corrections in all relevant records and registers. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13(40 The schedule property, which is subject matter of the present E.P., is also subject matter of the suit in C.S.No.423 of 1995 filed by the said V.K.John for partition is also pending before this Court and therefore, in fitness of things, this Court is inclined to direct the Registry to list the matter along with C.S.No.423 of 1995 for better adjudication of the entire issue.(5) The Registry is directed to place the matter before The Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders to list the matter along with C.S.No.423 of 1995."8. When the abovesaid three impleading petitions were allowed as above by the learned Judge, the respondents, namely the first respondent-S.Mukanchand Bothra & HUF represented by Mukanchand Bothra, did not appear, as noted by the learned Judge in the said order dated 06.09.2012 in paragraph 2 therein. 9. As against the abovesaid order dated 06.09.2012, the said S.Mukanchand Bothra & HUF, represented by himself, filed Original Side Appeals in O.S.A.Nos.358 to 360 of 2012, showing the present applicant-V.K.John as first respondent therein and the present second respondent, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14namely A.Philip as second respondent in those O.S.As., who was subsequently given up as is evident from the judgment rendered in the said O.S.As. Those O.S.As. came to be disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 11.08.2014 observing as follows:"In all the appeals, on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is agreed that the appeals be disposed of with the following directions:(i) Orders passed in A.Nos.3800, 3801 and 3802 of 2012 are set aside.(ii) The appellant is granted leave to file replies to the applications within a period of two weeks from today.(iii) The learned Single Judge would consider the applications on merits on the next date fixed of which all the parties have notice.(iv) List before the learned Single Judge on 25.08.2014.2. The Original Side Appeals are, accordingly disposed of. No costs."10. The effect of the above judgment of the Division Bench is that the applications in A.Nos.3800 to 3802 of 2012 stood restored and the parties be afforded an opportunity of filing reply, if any to all those applications. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1511. After the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the afore-mentioned O.S.As., the present applications in A.Nos.3800 to 3802 of 2012 have been listed for hearing along with connected applications in A.No.3511 of 2021, all under E.P.No.17 of 2012 and finally taken up for consideration by this Court.12. Mr.Abraham Marcos, learned counsel representing M/s.King and Partridge, for the applicant in A.Nos.3800 to 3802 of 2012 submitted that the legal heir of Late K.John, namely V.K.John (applicant herein) is the owner of the property in question and the applicant herein had earlier filed a Civil Suit before this Court in C.S.No.423 of 1995 against his uncle Appu John (since deceased) and his aunt, namely Leelie Seetharaman (since deceased) and four others, for partition of the property(ies) mentioned therein. The property in the E.P. proceedings relating to the Award, is one of the subject properties in C.S.No.423 of 1995. This Court, on a consideration of the said C.S.No.423 of 1995, decreed the same, vide judgment and decree dated 02.01.2018.13. Thereafter, the present applicant-V.K.John filed application in A.No.7185 of 2019 in E.P.No.17 of 2012 in Arbitration Award No.1 of 2011, seeking to determine the question as to the right over the schedule https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 16property and whether the prayer in the E.P. can be allowed in the light of the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2018 of this Court in C.S.No.423 of 1995 and accordingly, to dismiss the E.P. with costs. A.No.7185 of 2019 was filed on the basis that in the suit proceedings in C.S.No.423 of 1995, this Court had earlier granted interim injunction on 22.07.1996 in favour of the applicant herein (V.K.John). Further, as against the Award of the Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Award No.1 of 2011, dated 21.02.2011, a Civil Revision Petition is also filed by the present applicant-V.K.John, in C.R.P.No.676 of 2013, seeking to quash the same and the said C.R.P. is pending before this Court. 14. In the meanwhile, after the O.S.As., were disposed of on 11.08.2014, when the present applications in A.Nos.3800 to 3802 of 2012 were taken up for hearing, a learned Judge of this Court, vide order dated 27.10.2014, directed the Registry to post the matter before the learned Additional Master-III to adduce evidence and the respondents shall be at liberty to cross-examine the impleading applicant (V.K.John) and after completion of the evidence, the matter may be posted before the Court. 15. This Court is informed that thereafter, no steps were taken by the parties to have the matter listed before the Master concerned for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17adducing evidence.16. In the meantime, the partition suit filed by the said V.K.John (applicant herein) in C.S.No.423 of 1995, had been decreed by the learned Judge on 02.01.2018, holding that the plaintiff-V.K.John is entitled to a preliminary decree declaring his 1/3 share in the suit propertyies and his claim to the remaining 2/3 share, namely 1/3 of Appu John and 1/3 share of Leelie Seetharam are left open to be decided in the testamentary proceedings which are pending. 17. In fact, on behalf of the respondents, the fourth respondent, namely Mr.M.Gagan Bothra appeared as party-in-person, who strenuously submitted that the order passed by the learned Judge on 27.10.2014 needs to be complied with, before this Court considers the present impleading applications. However, this Court is not inclined to countenance the said submission, in view of the development which had taken place subsequent to the said order dated 27.10.2014 passed in the present impleading applications earlier, as referred to supra. 18. It is an admitted fact that this Court has granted preliminary decree of partition in C.S.No.423 of 1995 at the instance of the present https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 18applicant herein (V.K.John) who has filed the said C.S.No.423 of 1995, vide judgment and decree dated 02.01.2018. When once this Court has rendered judgment and decree in favour of the applicant-V.K.John and his title over the property(ies) in question had been declared by this Court in the said suit, the proposed applicant, i.e. V.K.John is a proper and necessary party in the present E.P. proceedings and one of the subject properties in the partition suit in C.S.No.423 of 1995, is the subject property in E.P.No.17 of 2012.19. At the time when the learned Judge had passed orders in A.Nos.3800 to 3802 of 2012 in E.P.No.17 of 2012 on 27.10.2014, the partition suit in C.S.No.423 of 1995 was pending before this Court and it had not attained finality. However, it had attained finality only on 02.01.2018 when the same was decreed. This Court finds that there is no necessity to relegate the applicant-V.K.John to subject himself to trial and prove his status. 20. In the above circumstances, this Court holds that the applicant-V.K.John is a necessary and proper party, and therefore, A.Nos.3800 to 3802 of 2012 are allowed as prayed for. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1921. As far as the application in A.No.2744 of 2012 in E.P.No.17 of 2012 is concerned, the same had been filed to modify the order dated 29.04.2012 as referred to supra and the said A.No.2744 of 2012 was dismissed by the learned Master on 18.07.2012, against which, A.No.3511 of 2012 is filed by S.Mukanchand Bothra & HUF, which is also pending before this Court. 22. In the result:(a) Impleading Applications in A.Nos.3800 to 3802 of 2012 are allowed as prayed for. Necessary amendments shall be carried out in the connected applications/E.P.(b) Registry is directed to list connected applications in A.No.3511 of 2012 in A.No.2744 of 2012 in E.P.No.17 of 2012, and also A.No.443 of 2020 in E.P.No.17 of 2012, on 28.10.2021, for hearing. Sd/-V.P.N.J. 14.09.2021//Certified to be a true copy//Dated this the day of 2021.S.U./21.10.2021 COURT OFFICER(O.S.)From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.