M.UDAYA KUMAR vs THE ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL AND OFFICIAL TRUSTEE OF

OSA No. 21 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR
OSA No. 21 of 2024
CNR: {HCMA010082312024}
1. M.Udaya Kumar
2. C.Devika
3. M.Parameswarai
4. S.Sathiya
5. S.Rakshitha (minor)
D/o.C.Sivakumar, Rep. by S.Sathiya (Mother)
th
4 appellant herein
..Appellant(s)
Vs
The Administrator General And
Official Trustee Of Tamil Nadu,
City Civil Court, Additional Buildings,
High Court Campus, Chennai 600 104.
..Respondent(s)
Original Side Appeal is filed under XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side
Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letter Patent, to set aside the judgment and
decree dated 13.10.2023 passed by this Court, in Application No.1995 of 2023
in A.No.135 of 1983 in C.S.No.274 of 1899.
For Appellant(s): Mr.S.Sarathy
For Respondent(s): Mr.M.R.Jothimanian
__________
Page1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )

OSA No. 21 of 2024
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.)
The present Original Side Appeal has been filed against the order passed
by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing A.No.1995 of 2023 in
A.No.135 of 1983 in C.S.No.274 of 1899. By the said application, the
appellants sought a direction to the respondent to give effect to the order dated
08.04.1983 passed in A.No.135 of 1983 in C.S.No.274 of 1899 and to execute
and register a sale deed in respect of 360 square feet of the scheduled property.
2. The case of the appellants, as set out in the papers, is that the
respondent, in its capacity as Administrator General and Official Trustee,
administered the land belonging to Bhagu Jana Maligai Merchants Charities.
The scheduled property was leased by the Official Trustee to Thiru.Murugesa
Mudaliar and his wife, Tmt.Annamal. The property was thereafter allotted as a
settlement to their daughter, late Tmt. Sivagami Ammal.
3. It is stated that Tmt. Sivagami Ammal, wife of late Thiru A.
Thiruvengadam Mudaliar, had four children, namely, late Thiru. T. Madhavan,
late T. Muthuswamy alias Muthu, late T. Bhanumathi and late T.
__________
Page2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )

OSA No. 21 of 2024
Chandrasekaran. After the death of Tmt. Sivagami Ammal, her husband and
children were stated to have remained in possession and control of the property,
with the supervision of her husband, late Thiru. A. Thiruvengadam Mudaliar.
4. The appellants state that lands belonging to the same locality were
leased to several lessees, who joined together and instituted proceedings against
the respondent, seeking sale of the lands to the lessees. In Application No.135
of 1983 in C.S.No.274 of 1899, this Court, by order dated 08.04.1983, directed
that the scheduled lands in the occupation of the respective respondents,
including the property in question, be sold to them at the rates specified in the
order. The consideration was payable either in 30 equal instalments, without
default, or in one lump sum.
5. According to the appellants, late Thiru. A. Thiruvengadam Mudaliar,
arrayed as the 34th respondent in the said application, paid a sum of Rs.6,750/-
on 25.09.1985 towards the sale consideration for the scheduled property
measuring 360 square feet. The payment is stated to have been made vide Cash
Receipt No. D. No. 982631. However, the sale deed was not registered in favour
of the purchaser or his legal heirs, despite repeated follow-ups.
__________
Page3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )

OSA No. 21 of 2024
6. The appellants further state that late Thiru. T. Muthuswamy died a
bachelor and late Selvi. T. Bhanumathi died a spinster, and therefore left no
legal heirs. Late Thiru. T. Madhavan left behind his son, the first appellant,
Thiru. M. Udaya Kumar. Late Thiru. T. Chandrasekaran had two children,
Thiru. C. Siva Kumar and Selvi. C. Prema, both of whom are stated to have
died. Thiru. C. Siva Kumar left behind his mother, Tmt. C. Devika, the second
appellant, and his daughter, Baby S. Rakshita, the fifth appellant. Selvi. C.
Prema died a spinster. Tmt. M. Parameswari, the third appellant, is stated to
have relinquished her right in favour of her son, the first appellant.
7. The appellants rely on the order dated 08.04.1983 and the payment
made on 25.09.1985. They state that on 13.12.2019, the respondent sent a letter
to the legal heirs of late Thiru. A. Thiruvengadam Mudaliar, calling upon them
to appear on 03.01.2020 and produce documents concerning the decree in
O.S.No.8603 of 1996, by which late Thiru. A. Thiruvengadam Mudaliar had
been declared dead. The legal heirs appeared before the respondent's office on
03.01.2020 and 06.02.2020 with the relevant documents and requested
registration of the sale deed in their favour.
8. It is further stated that the first appellant, by a representation dated
26.02.2020, submitted the relevant documents together with a consent letter
__________
Page4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )

OSA No. 21 of 2024
from the third appellant relinquishing her right in the property in favour of the
first appellant. By letter dated 03.03.2020, the respondent informed the first
appellant that appropriate orders of this Court would be required,
notwithstanding the order dated 08.04.1983. The appellants accordingly
approached this Court by filing A.No.1995 of 2023, seeking a direction to
register the sale deed in respect of the scheduled property in favour of the first
and second appellants.
9. The learned Single Judge dismissed the application, taking note of the
fact that the appellants were seeking to enforce an order passed approximately
40 years earlier. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the appellants have preferred the
present appeal.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that, by
order dated 08.04.1983 in A.No.135 of 1983 in C.S.No.274 of 1899, this Court
had directed the respondent to sell the properties to the persons in occupation at
the rates fixed therein. The grandfather of the appellants was the 34th
respondent in the said application and, according to the appellants, had paid the
sale consideration. It was therefore contended that the appellants, as his legal
heirs, were entitled to seek enforcement of the order and registration of the sale
deed.
__________
Page5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )

OSA No. 21 of 2024
11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that the order dated 08.04.1983 had not been acted upon for nearly 40
years and that the application filed in 2023 was barred by limitation. It was
further contended that the rate fixed in 1983 could not represent the present
market value and that the respondent, being the Administrator General and
Official Trustee of the trust property, could not sell or transfer title to the
property as a matter of right.
12. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order dated
08.04.1983 passed in A.No.135 of 1983 in C.S.No.274 of 1899 can be enforced
by the appellants after a lapse of about 40 years by filing A.No.1995 of 2023.
13. There is no dispute that an extent of 360 square feet was in the
possession of late Thiru. A. Thiruvengadam Mudaliar, who was arrayed as the
34th respondent in A.No.135 of 1983. It is also not in dispute that, by order
dated 08.04.1983, this Court directed the sale of the properties to the respective
persons in occupation at the rates specified in that order.
14. The appellants contend that the sale consideration was paid on
25.09.1985 and that the sale deed could not be executed because late Thiru. A.
Thiruvengadam Mudaliar subsequently went missing and was later declared
__________
Page6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )

OSA No. 21 of 2024
dead. Even accepting the appellants' contention regarding payment, the material
placed before us shows that no timely steps were taken to enforce the order
dated 08.04.1983. The application seeking enforcement was filed only in 2023,
nearly four decades after the original order.
15. A decree or order cannot be kept alive indefinitely without being
enforced in accordance with law. The period prescribed for execution has long
since elapsed in the present case. The appellants cannot, at this distance of time,
claim an enforceable right solely on the basis of the order passed in 1983. Any
right that may have accrued to their predecessor under that order has become
unenforceable by operation of law. Consequently, the application filed in 2023
cannot be sustained.
16. It is also relevant that the property forms part of trust property and
that the Administrator General and Official Trustee has been appointed to
monitor and administer the trust properties. In the circumstances of this case,
the appellants cannot claim, as a matter of right, that the respondent must now
sell the property and convey title to them. This consideration further supports
the conclusion that no relief can be granted in the present appeal.
__________
Page7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )

OSA No. 21 of 2024
17. The learned Single Judge was therefore justified in dismissing
A.No.1995 of 2023. We find no reason to interfere with the order under appeal.
18. In the result, the Original Side Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.)
26-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
VKR
To
1.The Administrator General And
Official Trustee Of Tamil Nadu,
City Civil Court, Additional Buildings,
High Court Campus, Chennai 600 104.
2.The Sub Assistant Registrar (Original Side),
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
__________
Page8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )

OSA No. 21 of 2024
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
GK.MUTHUKUMAAR, J.
VKR
OSA No. 21 of 2024
26-10-2026
__________
Page9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )