Madras High Court
B.Ravikumar vs Augustin Babu on 10 April, 2026
C.M.P. No.8061 of 2026 in SA. No.974 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
C.M.P. No.8061 of 2026 in SA. No.974 of 2012
1. B. Ravikumar
2. M/s. Le Royal Constructions (P) Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director
Smt. Le Josepine Consal,
No.38/40, North Boag Road,
T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017 …Petitioners
Vs.
Augustin Babu … Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Order 13 Rule 9 of
CPC and under Section 151 CPC to order return of the Original Sale Deed
dated 29.08.2000 registered as Doc. No.3026/2000, Sub Registrar Office,
Kodambakkam as A4 in O.S. No.5548/2004 on the file of XI Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai, by substituting with the certified copy of the same.
For Petitioners : Mr. R. Vijayaraghaven
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P. No.8061 of 2026 in SA. No.974 of 2012
ORDER
The captioned Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed for return of the
original sale deed dated 29.08.2000 registered as Doc. No.3026/2000, Sub
Registrar Office, Kodambakkam, marked as A4 in O.S. No.5548/2004 on the
file of XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, by substituting with the
certified copy of the same.
2. According to the petitioners, they are the respondents in the above
Second Appeal. The present Second Appeal is preferred against the decree
and judgment dated 04.04.2012 passed by the learned V Additional Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S. No.382 of 2008. It is further submitted that
the dispute is with regard to the land measuring 468 sq. ft. situate at No.10,
Basha Sahib Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai. The first appellate court in A.S.
No.382 of 2008 upheld the contention of the petitioner that the respondent /
appellant has no right over the said 468 sq. ft. and ultimately decreed the suit
in favour of the petitioner. The respondent in A.S. No.382/2008 preferred this
Second Appeal claiming that the said property belongs to him and that the
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P. No.8061 of 2026 in SA. No.974 of 2012
first appellate court has not properly appreciated the case and decreed the suit.
It is further submitted that the appellant herein, after filing of the suit by the
petitioner herein in O.S. No.5548 of 2004 on the file of IX Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai, for permanent injunction, filed a suit in O.S.
No.11108 of 2010 before the XIX Additional Judege, City Civil Court,
Chennai, for declaration that his wife Elizabeth Augustin is the absolute owner
of the above said 468 sq. ft of land and for other reliefs, in which the present
petitioner was arrayed as 4th defendant. The said suit was dismissed by the
XVI Additional Judge, by a decree and judgment dated 22.11.2018, in which it
was held that the respondent / appellant and his wife prepared a sale deed
dated 19.01.2005 in order to grab the said 468 sq. ft of property out of which
249 sq. ft. of land belongs to the petitioner and balance 219 sq. ft is
Government Poramboke. Therefore, the courts below rejected the relief of
declaration of ownership of the respondent / appellant and his wife. On the
side of the petitioner, it is further submitted that the original sale deed dated
29.08.2000 registered as Doc. No.3026/2000, at SRO, Kodambakkam, is
marked as Ex.A4 in O.S.No.5548/2004 on the file of the XI Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai. It is submitted that the dispute is only with regard
to the extent of 468 sq. ft between the petitioner and the appellant and that the
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P. No.8061 of 2026 in SA. No.974 of 2012
appellant is not challenging the petitioner’s title to an extent of 4545 sq. ft.
The petitioner is unable to carry out any further work in his property on
account of the original being filed before the Court. Since the issue is only to
an extent of 468 sq. ft., the petitioner is requesting to return the original
document to proceed further in respect of the undisputed extent of the
property. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above petition to permit him to
take the original sale deed by substituting the certified copy of the original sale
deed dated 29.08.2000 registered as Doc. No.3026/2000, Sub Registrar
Office, Kodambakkam, marked as A4 in O.S. No.5548/2004 on the file of XI
Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
3. Since the above mentioned sale deed belongs to the petitioner and
marked through him before the trial court, notice to the respondent is
dispensed with.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Civil
Miscellaneous petition is ordered and the Registry is directed to return the
sale deed dated 29.08.2000 registered as Doc. No. 3026/2000, Sub
Registrar Office, Kodambakkam, marked as Ex.A4 in O.S. No. 5548 of 2004
on the file of XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, by
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P. No.8061 of 2026 in SA. No.974 of 2012
substituting with the certified copy of the same. It is made clear that the
petitioner shall return the said document to the Court as and when required for
any further reference.
10.04.2026
bga
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Note: Issue order copy today (10.04.2026)
To
XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P. No.8061 of 2026 in SA. No.974 of 2012
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
bga
C.M.P. No.8061 of 2026 in SA. No.974 of 2012
10.04.2026
6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
