Madras High Court

Madras HC: 1997 Property Promise to Hemakumari's Father Can Still Be Enforced

Updated
Feb 4, 2026 11:22 PM
madras-hc-1997-property-promise-to-hemakumaris-father-can-still-be-enforced

Quick Summary: In a legal battle over property, the Madras High Court decided on January 29, 2026, that a lawsuit to enforce a promise related to a property sale can continue, even though there were arguments about whether too much time had passed. The case involves a disputed sale agreement and a promise made decades ago.

The Players: Anandan vs. Hemakumari

This case involves K.S. Anandan and K.A. Ramalingam @ Ramesh as the people bringing the case against Hemakumari and others. The dispute is about a property sale agreement that Anandan claims is not valid.

The Background: A Promise Made in 1997

Back in 1997, a woman named Kalavathi sold some property to Anandan. However, before this sale, she had promised Hemakumari's father that she would give him a part of the property. This promise was documented in an agreement.

The Dispute Begins: A Sale Agreement Declared Invalid

On April 2, 2024, the District Judge at Ponneri ruled in favor of Hemakumari, stating that the sale agreement to Anandan was not valid. Hemakumari claimed that she was supposed to get a part of the property based on the earlier promise.

The Legal Twist: Enforcing a Promise

Hemakumari wanted to file a lawsuit to enforce the promise, which means she wanted the court to make sure Kalavathi's promise was kept. However, Anandan argued that too much time had passed for such a lawsuit.

Quote from the Court: “The rights of the parties have to be decided based on their position on the date of presentation of the lawsuit.”

The Court's Decision: Time Isn't Up Yet

Justice S. Sounthar ruled that Hemakumari can still go ahead with the lawsuit to enforce the promise. The court noted that delays were partly due to Anandan's side taking years to respond to the initial request.

What's Next: Concerns About Time Limits

Anandan can still argue that the lawsuit is too late in the ongoing case about enforcing the promise. The court clarified that this decision doesn’t affect that argument.

Quote from the Court: “The people bringing the case are allowed to argue about the time limits in the lawsuit to enforce the promise.”

Summary of the Verdict

The court decided that Hemakumari can continue with her lawsuit to enforce the promise, despite the time that has passed. However, Anandan can still argue that the lawsuit is too late. The case continues as both sides prepare for the next steps in court.

Tags:
Property Rights
Contract Law
Enforcement of Judgments