M/S. GENERAL FOUNDATION M/S. HARITHA for appellant vs SUBULAKSHMI AMMAL — AS/1114/2015

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 12th June 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 09-Aug-2017

CNR: HCMA010004742015

Filing Number

AS/42166/2015

Filing Date

02-Jun-2015

Registration No

AS/1114/2015

Registration Date

05-Nov-2015

Judge

Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh Babu

Coram

Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh Babu

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

APPEAL ( 168 )

Sub-Category

S. 96 of CPC ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

JUDICIALSECTION

Decision Date

12-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 13-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S. GENERAL FOUNDATION M/S. HARITHA for appellant

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SUBULAKSHMI AMMAL

    Adv. VIDE COURT ORDER DT. 12/7/2018,R1 - DISMISSED ,R-4 T.V. DURAISAMY S/O. VELUSAMY GOUNDER, NO.74 AND 75 SUBIAH COLONY, 1ST STREET, TIRUPPUR TOWN. ,R-3 K.K. SHANMUGAM CHERAN NAGAR, BEHIND GARDEN, G.N. MILLS POST, COIMBATORE. 1123

  2. 2.MALLIGA DEVI

  3. 3.K.K. SHANMUGAM

  4. 4.T.V. DURAISAMY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh BabuView PDF

    Case Summary: AS/1114/2015 Court's Decision: The High Court of Madras dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the trial court's award of Rs.10,00,000 as alternative relief while denying the primary claims for permanent injunction, declaration of sale deed as void, and specific performance for property transfer. Key Facts: General Foundation (real estate developer) claimed an oral agreement with Subulakshmi Ammal (property owner) in 2001 for property development in Coimbatore at Rs.27,000/cent. The plaintiff constructed flats and sold 15 to third-party purchasers but disputed the defendants' sale of one unsold flat (Block-III) and vacant land (Block-II) to a fourth party in 2008, seeking recovery of construction costs paid. Reasoning: The court found the oral development agreement established through witness testimony and documentary evidence (cheques and sale deeds), but determined it was merely a construction-marketing arrangement—not a land sale agreement to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff's entitlement was limited to construction costs only, not land ownership, justifying the monetary award over specific performance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Date Case

    Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh Babu

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    As Cases

    Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh Babu

  5. 04-Dec-2025

    As Cases

    Honourable Mr.Justice M.jothiraman

  6. 06-Jul-2022

    As Cases

    Honourable Mrs.Justice S.kannammal

  7. 22-Jun-2022

    As Cases

    Honourable Mrs.Justice S.kannammal

  8. 15-Jun-2022

    As Cases

    Honourable Mrs.Justice S.kannammal

  9. 20-Apr-2022

    As Cases

    Honourable Mrs.Justice S.kannammal

  10. 06-Apr-2022

    As Cases

    Honourable Mrs.Justice S.kannammal

  11. 29-Mar-2022

    For Dismissal

    Honourable Mrs.Justice S.kannammal

  12. 16-Mar-2022

    As Cases

    Honourable Mrs.Justice S.kannammal

  13. 03-Mar-2022

    As Cases

    Honourable Mrs.Justice S.kannammal

  14. 08-Nov-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  15. 02-Jun-2015

    Case filed

    Registration No. AS/1114/2015

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: AS/1114/2015 Court's Decision: The High Court of Madras dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the trial court's award of Rs.10,00,000 as alternative relief while denying the primary claims for permanent injunction, declaration of sale deed as void, and specific performance for property transfer. Key Facts: General Foundation (real estate developer) claimed an oral agreement with Subulakshmi Ammal (property owner) in 2001 for property development in Coimbatore at Rs.27,000/cent. The plaintiff constructed flats and sold 15 to third-party purchasers but disputed the defendants' sale of one unsold flat (Block-III) and vacant land (Block-II) to a fourth party in 2008, seeking recovery of construction costs paid. Reasoning: The court found the oral development agreement established through witness testimony and documentary evidence (cheques and sale deeds), but determined it was merely a construction-marketing arrangement—not a land sale agreement to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff's entitlement was limited to construction costs only, not land ownership, justifying the monetary award over specific performance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case