J.PREMA KUMARI vs R. GOPAL
- Court
- Madras High Court
APPLN No. 316 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 14.08.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 16.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
APPLN No. 316 of 2024
in
IP No. 2 of 2018
1. J.Prema Kumari
2. R. Nitin Aditya Kaniyur
..Applicant(s)
Vs
1. R. Gopal
2. Mrs. Jayanthi Gopal
3. The Official Assignee
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer
Judge’s Summons under Order II Rule I of Presidency Towns
Insolvency Rules read with Section 17 Rules 3 and 4 of PTI Act, praying to
direct the Official Assignee to execute the sale deed for the Plots Numbers 25,
26, 27, 28 and 29 situated in VIP city, survey No. 275/2 at Puzhudhivakkam
village, Soorai panchayat union, Madhuranthagam Taluk morefully mentioned
in the schedule of the Judge’s summons in favour of the applicants.
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:10 pm )
APPLN No. 316 of 2024
For Applicant(s): Mr.P.Neethi Kumar
For M/s.Waraon and Sai Rams
For Respondent(s): Mr.J.Balagopal
(For R1 and R2)
Mr. C.Ramesh
For Official Assignee (For R3)
ORDER
This Application has been filed to direct the Official Assignee to execute
the sale deed for the Plots Numbers 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 situated in VIP city,
survey No. 275/2 at Puzhudhivakkam village, Soorai panchayat union,
Madhuranthagam Taluk morefully mentioned in the schedule of the Judge’s
summons in favour of the applicants.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that
they had extended a secured loan in favour of the insolvents and had been
evading repayment of the said loan. It is the claim of the applicants that it had
come to their knowledge of the insolvency proceedings, wherein the insolvents
were adjudicated as insolvents by orders of this Court dated 19.01.2018.
4. It is the further claim of the applicants that the husband of the first
applicant had entered into an independent agreement of sale in respect of the
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:10 pm )
APPLN No. 316 of 2024
Judge’s Summons-mentioned properties and had also paid the full sale
consideration at the time of executing the sale agreement. However, the sale
deed had not been executed by the second insolvent under one pretext or the
other. In support of the payment of the entire sale consideration, it is the claim
of the applicants that the original title deeds relating to the Judge’s Summons
mentioned properties had also been handed over by the second insolvent in
favour of the applicants.
st
5. He would further submit that the 1 applicant’s husband is the bona
fide purchaser of the property, who cannot be divested of his rights and interest
in the said property. He would also submit that the first applicant had entered
the box and had substantiated her right for the claim made in this application
and therefore, he would submit that appropriate directions be given to the
Official Assignee to execute sale deeds in respect of the Judge’s Summons
mentioned properties in favour of the applicants.
6. Countering his arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the first and the second respondents, who are the insolvents, would
acknowledge the execution of the sale agreement and receipt of consideration in
full, thereby supporting the claim of the applicants.
__________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:10 pm )
APPLN No. 316 of 2024
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Official Assignee would submit that the entire claim made by the applicants,
based upon an unregistered sale agreement, does not deserve any consideration.
He would, at the first outset, submit that this agreement of sale is required to be
registered and based upon an unregistered document, the applicants cannot be
entitled to the reliefs as claimed.
8. He would further submit that the alleged sale agreements had been
entered into between the parties on 24.01.2015. The consideration that is alleged
to be paid under the said agreement had been made by a cheque, which was
dated 17.07.2014 i.e., a cheque bearing a date issued prior to six months from
the date of execution of the said sale agreement.
9. He would submit that no proof had been placed before this Court that
the said sale consideration paid through the cheque had been encashed by the
insolvent. That apart, he would submit that the applicants and the insolvents are
relatives, as admitted to by the first applicant in cross-examination. Further, in
the cross-examination, the first applicant was not able to point out the date, on
which, the documents were handed over by the insolvent and that apart, there
has been a clear admission that the insolvents had agreed to return the money in
the year 2015. When the applicants had admitted that they had signed the
document under Ex.A6, which is the sale agreement, their claim in the Claim
__________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:10 pm )
APPLN No. 316 of 2024
Petition that knowledge of the sale agreement entered into by the predecessor-
in-interest of the applicants was not known to him, would only show that they
had come with unclean hands before this Court.
10. He would further submit that an order adjudicating respondents 1 and
2 as insolvents came to be passed by this Court on 19.01.2018 and in that
context, the clear admission by the applicants in cross-examination that the
documents were handed over only in the year 2018, coupled with the fact that
admittedly a cheque of the year 2014 had been given for a sale deed executed in
the year 2015, would only create an unexplained suspicion in the transactions,
which, according to him, had been made to defeat the rights of the bona fide
creditors of the insolvents. Hence, he seeks this Court to dismiss the application.
11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
12. It is the claim of the applicants that their predecessors-in-interest,
namely, the husband of the first applicant and the father of the second applicant,
had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the property belonging to the
insolvents on 21.04.2015. In support of their claim, the first applicant has
examined herself and relied upon the sale agreement as Ex.A6.
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:10 pm )
APPLN No. 316 of 2024
13. A perusal of Ex.A6 would indicate that the same had been supported
by a consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only), which is
alleged to have been paid vide a cheque dated 17.07.2014. In that regard, it is to
be noted that there is no covenant or recital that the cheque, which was dated
more than six months earlier, had already been encashed by the insolvents.
14. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the
Official Assignee, the encashment of the said cheque had not been substantiated
to by the applicant, evidencing payment of the entire consideration. It has
further not been explained as to why, on receipt of the entire sale consideration
as indicated in the said sale agreement, no attempt to execute the sale deed had
been made prior to the applicants being declared as insolvents.
15. Further, in respect of the schedule as filed by the insolvents, it could
be noticed that the predecessors-in-interest of the applicants had been shown as
secured creditors for a value of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) in
respect of Plot Nos.22 to 26, as having been mortgaged not only in favour of the
predecessors-in-interest of the applicants but also in favour of the first applicant.
When Plot Nos.25 and 26, which form part of the Judge’s Summons mentioned
property, were shown to be mortgaged properties in favour of the first applicant
and her husband, the statement of the counsel for respondents 1 and 2,
supporting the claim of the applicant, would only show that there is an attempt
__________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:10 pm )
APPLN No. 316 of 2024
of collusion between the applicants and the insolvents to defeat the rights of the
various creditors of the insolvents. This would further support the suspicion
raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Official Assignee, when read in
conjunction with the admission made in the cross-examination, wherein there is
an admission of fact that a sale agreement had been entered into in the year
2015, followed by an admission that the amounts were agreed to be returned in
the year 2015, which would only support such a conclusion.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court do not find any merits in the
application and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs.
16-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
kak
__________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:10 pm )
APPLN No. 316 of 2024
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
kak
APPLN No. 316 of 2024
in
IP No. 2 of 2018
16-10-2026
__________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:10 pm )