Allowed

Mrs. K Subbulakshmi v. Mr. R. Ulagalanthan

Madras HC13 Feb 2013A/678/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants seek interim injunction against respondents 13-16 for altering properties derived from a partition deed based on an unprobated Will. Court finds prima facie case, balance of convenience favors applicants, and grants injunction pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim injunction restraining respondents 13 to 16 from altering or changing the character of item No. II of suit schedule properties.

Mrs. K Subbulakshmi Vs Mr. R. Ulagalanthan — Partition | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

Application No.678 of 2013 in C.S.No.610 of 2013

¶3

R.SUBBIAH, J

¶4

The present application has been filed by the applicants/ plaintiffs to grant an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents 13 to 16 / defendants 13 to 16, their men, agents, servants or anybody claiming right either under or through them from in any manner altering or changing the character of item No.II of the suit schedule properties pending disposal of the suit in C.S.No.610 of 2013.

¶5

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the civil suit.

¶6

The plaintiffs have filed the suit in C.S.No.610 of 2013 as against the defendants for a declaration, declaring that the partition deed dated 27.2.2002 registered as document No.1326 of 2002 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Sembium, executed between the defendants 5 and 6 along with their brother S.Chandrasekaran, as null and void and for other incidental reliefs. Pending suit, the plaintiffs have filed the present application for interim injunction.

¶7

¶8

The case of the plaintiffs as could be seen in the affidavit

¶9

in support of the application, in nutshell, is set out hereunder:-

¶10

(a) Before narrating the facts of the case, for easy

¶11

understanding, the genealogy of the parties is given below:-

¶12

M.P.Subramania Mudaliar

¶13

¶14

S.Kanniammal, w/o.M.P.Subramania Mudaliar

¶15

- - - - | | | | S.Chandrasekaran S.Shanmugam S.Arumugam S.Dhakshinamoorthy (died. 1/4th share) (died.1/4th share) 1/4th share 1/4th share | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | S.Rathinammal S.Kumaravelu S.Saravana Kumar | (wife-1/12th share) (son-1/12th share) (son-1/12th share) |

¶16

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | |

¶17

C.Chamundeeswari S.Dhanalakshmi C.Sivasubramaniam C.Balasubramaniam (wife-1/16th share) (daughter -16th share) (son-1/16th share) (son-1/16th share)

¶18

(b) Originally, all that piece and parcel of the property bearing Door No.202, Papermills Road, Perambur, Chennai-11 comprised in T.S.No.44/B2, Block No.8 in Peravallur Village, PeramburPurasaiwalkam Taluk, Chennai District measuring to an extent of 1 ground and 294 sq.ft. together with superstructure existing thereon described under Item No.I of the suit schedule property belonged to

¶19

¶20

one M.P.Subramania Mudaliar and his wife S.Kanniammal. The said M.P.Subramania Mudaliar had four sons viz., S.Chandrasekaran, S.Shanmugam, S.Arumugam and S.Dhakshinamoorthy. The first defendant is the wife of S.Chandrasekaran and defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the daughter and sons of S.Chandrasekaran. The first plaintiff is the wife of S.Shanmugam and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are his sons. The other two brothers of S.Chandrasekaran and S.Shanbmugam are defendants 5 and 6. Defendants 7 to 12 are the grand children of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar and S.Kanniammal. The wife of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar pre-deceased him and S.Shanmugam, the second son of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar had also died on 1.9.1990.

¶21

(c) During his life time, M.P.Subramania Mudaliar purchased Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties and he had been enjoying the suit schedule properties ever since the date of purchase along with his family members and he died on 28.12.1986 leaving behind his four sons. On the death of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar, the suit schedule properties devolved upon his four sons and each of them are entitled to 1/4th share over the same and they have been enjoying the properties as absolute owners with full right. But, during his life time, M.P.Subramania Mudaliar is alleged to have executed a Will

¶22

¶23

dated 24.12.1986, which was duly registered as document No.94 of 1986 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Sembium. But, the alleged Will that has been executed by the said M.P.Subramania Mudaliar, has not been given effect to by his legal heirs and the said Will has not been proved in common form by way of probate proceedings on the file of this Court.

¶24

(d) While so, S.Shanmugam, the husband of the first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 died intestate on 1.9.1990. On the death of S.Shanmugam, his 1/4th share over the suit properties held by him devolved on the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/12th share each in the suit properties.

¶25

(e) In this situation, on 22.8.2013, when the plaintiffs applied for Encumbrance Certificate in respect of the suit properties and they came to know that certain transactions have taken place in the form of partition, settlement and conveyance touching upon the entire suit schedule properties. Immediately, the plaintiffs applied for copies of the documents, which are reflected in the said Encumbrance Certificate and to their surprise and shock, they have found that on 27.2.2002 that is after the demise of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar, his three sons

¶26

¶27

viz., S.Arumugam, S.Dhakshinamoorthy and S.Chandrasekaran partitioned the entire suit properties among themselves under two schedules viz., schedule A and schedule B. Schedule A was allotted to S.Arumugam and S.Dhakshinamoorthy, the defendants 5 and 6 herein and schedule B was allotted to S.Chandrasekaran. However, the alleged Will has never been projected after the death of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar and the said Will has not been proved in common form in the manner known to law by way of any probate proceedings or by way of proceedings under Letters of Administration. But, on the strength of the alleged Will, the above said three sons of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar have created a partition deed among themselves.

¶28

(f) Subsequent to the said fraudulent partition deed, S.Chandrasekaran, the husband of the first defendant and father of defendants 2, 3 and 4 executed a deed of settlement dated 9.7.2008 registered as document No.5380 of 2008 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Sembium settling the property allotted to him in favour of defendants 2, 3 and 4 viz., his daughter and sons. Under the recital of the said settlement deed, the said S.Chandrasekaran retained life interest for himself and also for his wife and after their death, would

¶29

¶30

devolve on their three children and thereafter, to devolve upon their grand children viz., defendants 7 to 12. Even the said settlement deed is sham and nominal and void ab initio since the said S.Chandrasekaran has derived the title through the earlier partition deed, which was fraudulently executed among himself and other brothers viz., S.Arumugam and S.Dhakshinamoorthy excluding the rights of S.Shanmugam the son of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar.

¶31

(g) Subsequent to the execution of the settlement deed, the said S.Chandrasekaran died on 20.12.2009 leaving behind defendants 1 to 4 as his legal heirs to inherit his estate. The first defendant viz., the wife of the said S.Chandrasekaran along with defendants 2 to 4 and 7 to 12 have dealt with the property, which was settled in their favour, under a sale deed dated 29.8.2011 registered as document No.3832 of 201 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Sembium, conveying the said property in favour of defendants 13 to 16. Since fraudulently the partition deed, settlement deed and the subsequent sale have taken place without distributing the share of the plaintiffs, who are the wife and sons of S.Shanmugam, the present suit has been filed by them and pending suit, they have filed the present application for the relief stated supra.

¶32

¶33

The third defendant, one of the sons of deceased S.Chandrasekaran has filed a counter stating that the suit properties are self-acquired properties and were purchased by M.P.Subramania Mudaliar by own exertion from one Ramiah Naidu and Rajamanickammal in and by a document in No.4485/1971 dated 4.9.1971 and document No.3029/1973 dated 30.8.1973 respectively. Subsequently, the Will was executed in favour of his three sons only viz., S.Chandrasekaran, S.Arumugam and S.Dhakshinamoorthy leaving the second son S.Shanmugam. Though the plaintiffs have averred that no probate and letters of administration was obtained from this Court, they never contended that the Will was executed by force and fraudulent manner. The Will was registered on 24.12.1986 in the presence of two witnesses. At the time of execution of the Will, the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind and the signature and the execution of the Will are not surrounded by any suspicious circumstances. The first plaintiff's husband's name viz., S.Shanmugam was not included in the Will and he was also aware that his name was omitted in the Will when he was living in the same property. After the death of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar, the said S.Shanmugam left the house with his family as he has no right, title and interest in the disputed or disposition of the property by the Will.

¶34

¶35

The plaintiffs themselves admitted that they are living away from the suit schedule property after the demise of S.Shanmugam on 1.9.1990. The legal heirs of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar partitioned the suit properties as per the Will among three sons, leaving S.Shanmugam as he has no right and his successors have no right. The partition deed was registered as document No.1326/2002 dated 27.2.2002 on the basis of the registered Will at Sub Registrar Office, Sembium, Chennai-11. Since divisions were made amicably without raising any objection and disputes particularly about the validity of the Will and genuineness of the signatures of the testator and attesting witnesses, the plaintiffs have no right to raise any objection as the Will was executed by the testator un-ambiguously and un-equivocally that too without any surrounding suspicious circumstances. Thus, he sought for the dismissal of the application.

¶36

The 14th defendant filed a counter stating that defendants 1 to 4 have approached them and offered them to sell item No.II of the suit schedule property. They have informed them that they are the absolute owners of the suit property and offered to sell the same for a sale consideration of Rs.79,82,500/-. Defendants 13 to 16 have also agreed to purchase the same and an agreement of sale was also

¶37

¶38

executed between them on 24.11.2010. Pursuant to a clause in the sale agreement, defendants 1 to 4 have filed H.M.G.O.P.No.11 of 2011 before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and obtained an order on 10.8.2011 and in lieu of the order, a part of the sale consideration of Rs.53,22,000/- have been deposited to the credit of the said OP before the City Civil Court, Chennai. Further, on getting permission from the competent civil Court, they have registered the sale deed in their favour on 29.8.2011 and the balance sale consideration of Rs.26,60,500/- was paid to the vendors viz., defendants 1 to 4 herein on the date of execution of sale deed before the Sub Registrar Office, Sembium. The plaintiffs have not objected or challenged the partition deed for the past 11 years in any Court of law and moreover, the partition also acted upon. Pursuant to the partition deed, a settlement deed was executed in favour of defendants 7 to 12 herein. These defendants have purchased the item No.2 of the suit property for a valuable sale consideration. The present suit and the application have been filed only to harass the defendants 13 to 16. Thus, they sought for the dismissal of the application.

¶39

I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, learned counsel appearing for defendants 1

¶40

¶41

to 8 and learned counsel appearing for defendants 13 to 16 and perused the entire materials available on record.

¶42

It is the case of the plaintiffs that item No.1 of the suit schedule property was purchased by M.P.Subramania Mudaliar on 4.9.1971 from one Ramiah Naidu vide document No.4485 of 1971 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Sembium, Chennai and item No.II of the suit schedule property was purchased by him under a sale deed dated 30.8.1973 from one Rajamanickammal and others vide document No.3029 of 1973 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Sembium, Chennai. Hence, the suit properties are the self acquired properties of the said M.P.Subramania Mudaliar. The wife of the said M.P.Subramania Mudaliar pre-deceased her husband. The said M.P.Subramania Mudaliar had died on 28.12.1986 leaving behind his four sons viz., S.Chandrasekaran, S.Shanmugam, S.Arumugam and S.Dhakshinamoorthy. His second son S.Shanmugam died on 1.9.1990 leaving behind his wife and two sons viz., the plaintiffs herein. His first son S.Chandreasekaran died on 20.12.2009 leaving behind his wife, daughter and two sons viz., defendants 1 to 4. Defendants 5 and 6 are the third and fourth son of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar.

¶43

¶44

Now, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing

¶45

for the plaintiffs that since the suit properties cannot be enjoyed in common by all the co-owners and could not be divided by metes and bounds, the plaintiffs thought it fit that the shares of the plaintiffs over the suit properties could be sold to third parties in as is where is condition or in the alternate, could be released in favour of the other co-owners. Hence, the plaintiffs, who have been residing away from the suit properties, have taken necessary steps by applying Encumbrance Certificate. To their shock and surprise, they came to know that already certain transactions had taken place in the form of partition, settlement and conveyance, touching upon the entire suit properties. Hence, they immediately applied for copies of the documents, which are reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate and they have found that on 27.2.2002, a partition deed was entered into between the three sons of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar viz., S.Chandrasekaran, S.Arumugam and S.Dakshinamoorthy, leaving his second son S.Shanmugam, the husband of the first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3. By virtue of the said partition deed, the said three persons partitioned the entire suit schedule properties among themselves, under which 'A' schedule property i.e., item No.I of the suit property was allotted to the share of S.Arumugam and

¶46

¶47

S.Dakshinamoorty/defendants 5 and 6 in the present suit and item No.II of the suit property was allotted to S.Chandrasekaran. From the recitals of the said partition deed, it is seen that the said M.P.Subramania Mudaiar, during his life time, executed an alleged Will dated 24.12.1986, which was duly registered as document No.94 of 1986 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Sembium, Chennai, bequeathing the entire suit schedule properties in favour of his three sons viz., S.Chandrasekaran, S.Arumugam and S.Dakshinamoorthy leaving his second son S.Shanmugam. By referring the said alleged Will dated 24.12.1986, a partition was effected among the other three sons. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that subsequent to the said fraudulent partition deed, S.Chandrasekaran, the husband of the first defendant and father of defendants 2 to 4, has executed a settlement deed dated 9.7.2008 registered as document No.5380 of 2008 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Sembium, Chennai, settling the property allotted to him, in favour of his daughter Dhanalakshmi and sons C.Sivasubramaniam and C.Balasubramaniam viz., defendants 2 to 4. After the demise of S.Chandrasekaran, defendants 2 to 4 executed a sale deed dated 29.8.2011 vide document No.3832 of 2011 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Sembium, Chennai, conveying the property in favour of

¶48

¶49

defendants 13 to 16. Since the plaintiffs have been residing away from the suit properties, they were not aware of all these facts and they came to know about these facts only when they obtained Encumbrance Certificate from the Registrar Office. Hence, they have filed the present suit.

¶50

It is the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs that S.Shanmugam, the husband of the first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 was also having 1/4th share over the suit properties along with his three brothers viz., S.Chandrasekaran, S.Arumugam, S.Dakshinamoorthy. But, leaving S.Shanmugam, his three brothers have partitioned the entire suit properties among themselves by referring an alleged Will dated 24.12.1986 said to have been executed by M.P.Subramania Mudaliar. But, the said Will has not been proved in a common form by way of probate proceedings on the file of this Court. Hence, the partition effected based on the said Will among the three sons of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar, leaving his second son S.Shanmugam, who was having 1/4th share in the suit properties is not valid. Since the three sons of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar have derived title through the alleged Will dated 24.12.1986, which has not been proved in common form by way of probate proceedings on the

¶51

¶52

file of this Court, the partition effected between the three sons of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar and settlement deed executed by S.Chandrasekaran in favour of defendants 2 to 4 and the sale deed executed by defendants 2 to 4 in favour of defendants 13 to 16 are liable to be set aside. Now, defendants 13 to 16, who have purchased the property are trying to change the character of the suit property. Hence, the present suit has been filed. Pending suit, since defendants 13 to 16 are trying to change the character of the suit properties, they have to be restrained from in any manner altering or changing the character of the item No.II of the schedule properties. In support of his contention that in the absence of probate of a Will, no right could be claimed, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs have relied upon the following judgments:-

¶53

(i) MANU/TN/0753/1996 : 1997(1) CTC 44 - Antony Chelliah v. Mariyal and three Ors.

¶54

(ii) MANU/TN/4144/2011 - M.Kabali and Ors. vs. Arulmighu Shri Ellaiamman Koil, rep. by its Trustee K.Selvaraj.

¶55

(iii) MANU/TN/0062/2011 : 2011 (2) CTC 435 - G.Ganesan and Ors. v. P.Sundari, R.Varalakshmi and M.Kasthuri.

¶56

¶57

(iv) MANU/TN/0061/2012 : 2012-1-LW 1017 - Padmavathy Ammal v. Pachaiyappa Nainar and Rangasamy Nainar.

¶58

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for defendants 13

¶59

to 16 submitted that the husband of the first plaintiff viz., S.Shanmugam was living in the suit property till his death i.e., on 1.9.1990. The plaintiffs were well aware of the Will dated 24.12.1986 executed by M.P.Subramania Mudaliar. Even in the said Will, a reference was made to the effect that only life time interest was given to the said S.Shanmugam. After the demise of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar, the plaintiffs herein have left the suit property. The partition was effected as early as on 27.2.2002. Though the plaintiffs were aware of the said partition deed executed among the three sons of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar, they have kept quite all along and after the property was sold to defendants 13 to 16, now, they have filed the present suit with an intention to grab the property. Further, there is no allegation by the plaintiffs that the Will was executed by M.P.Subramania Mudaliar on coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation and by fraud. In the absence of such allegation, the partition effected between the three sons of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar cannot be found fault with. No prima facie case has been made out by

¶60

¶61

the plaintiffs. The present application has been filed only to grab money from defendants 13 to 16. Hence, the application has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for defendants 13 to 16 has relied upon the following judgments:-

¶62

(i) (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 77 - Narendra Kante v. Anuradha Kante and others.

¶63

(ii) (2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 229 - Kishorsinh Ratansinh Jadeja v. Maruti Corporation and others.

¶64

(iii) (2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 792 - Best Seelers Retain (India) Private Limited v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited and others.

¶65

By way of reply, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that though the partition deed was executed in the year 2002, the plaintiffs were not aware of the same since the properties were not physically divided among the three sons. The plaintiffs came to know about the partition deed only after the sale of the property in favour of defendants 13 to 16. Thereafter, the plaintiffs applied for Encumbrance Certificate on 22.8.2013 and came to know about certain transactions which had taken place in the form

¶66

¶67

of partition, settlement and conveyance touching upon the suit schedule properties. If an order of interim injunction is not granted, the plaintiffs would be put to irreparable loss and hardship.

¶68

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the only question that has to be considered is, whether prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiffs for grant of interim injunction as prayed for in their favour ?

¶69

Though very many contentions have been raised by the learned counsel on either side, based on the factual aspects, it is the main submission of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs that though the three sons of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar viz., S.Chandrasekaran, S.Arumugam and S.Dhakshinamoorthy effected partition in respect of the self-acquired property of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar among themselves by referring an alleged Will dated 24.12.1986, since the said Will has not been proved in a common form by way of probate proceedings on the file of this Court, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration declaring that the partition deed dated 27.2.2002 and the subsequent documents viz., settlement deed dated 9.7.2008 and the sale deed

¶70

¶71

dated 29.8.2011 are null and void. Under these circumstances, if defendants 13 to 16, who had purchased the suit properties, are allowed to alter the property, the plaintiffs would be put to irreparable loss and hardship.

¶72

(A) In support of his contentions, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has relied upon the decision of this Court reported in MANU/TN/0753/1996 : 1997(1) CTC 44 - Antony Chelliah v. Mariyal and three Ors, wherein it has been held that in the absence of probate of a Will, no rights could be claimed or countenanced on the basis of the unprobated Will.

¶73

(B) In yet another decision reported in MANU/TN/0062/2011 : 2011 (2) CTC 435 - G.Ganesan and Ors. v. P.Sundari, R.Varalakshmi

¶74

and M.Kasthuri, the Division Bench of this Court has held that an unprobated Will is not admissible in evidence.

¶75

¶76

¶77

MANU/TN/4144/2011 - M.Kabali and Ors. vs. Arulmighu Shri Ellaiamman Koil, rep. by its Trustee

¶78

K.Selvaraj, it has been held that the respondent in that

¶79

case cannot claim any right or title in respect of the property under an unprobated Will.

¶80

From the dictum laid down in the above judgments, it is clear that the title cannot be claimed based on an unprobated Will. In the instant case, even according to the defendants, the partition was effected among the three sons of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar only based on an unprobated Will executed by the said M.P.Subramania Mudaliar.

¶81

But, it was contended by defendants 13 to 16 that though the plaintiffs were aware of the said Will dated 24.12.1986 and the execution of the partition deed dated 27.2.2002, they have kept quite for 11 years and now, after 11 years, they have come forward with the present suit only with an intention to harass the defendants 13 to 16 and to grab the suit property. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants 13 to 16 relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2008) 11 SCC 1 -

¶82

¶83

Mandali Ranganna v. T.Ramachandra, wherein, it has been held that "a person who had kept quiet for a long time and allowed another to deal with the property exclusive, ordinarily would not be entitled to an order of injunction".

¶84

In the instant case, I do not find any materials to show that the plaintiffs were aware of the partition deed dated 27.2.2002 and the subsequent documents viz., settlement deed dated 9.7.2008 and the sale deed dated 29.8.2011, till they obtain Encumbrance Certificate. Therefore, the said judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants 13 to 16 cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case at this stage.

¶85

Further, it is the case of the defendants that even according to the plaintiffs, there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud as against the three sons of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar with regard to the execution of the Will dated 24.12.1986. Under such circumstances, if interim injunction is granted, the defendants would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. But, it is well settled legal principle that no title could be claimed based on an unprobated Will. When that being the legal position, non-mentioning of allegation of

¶86

¶87

misrepresentation or fraud against the persons who had effected a partition deed based on unprobated Will, has no significance in this matter.

¶88

In view of the same, I am of the opinion, the entire issue involved in this case has to be decided only after completion of trial. However, prima facie, I find that since the partition was effected among the three sons of M.P.Subramania Mudaliar based on an unprobated Will, if the purchasers viz., defendants 13 to 16 are allowed to change or alter item No.II of the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Hence, I find that there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and the balance of convenience is also in their favour. Hence, there shall be an order of interim injunction as prayed for pending disposal of the suit and the application is ordered accordingly. No costs.

¶89

Index:Yes Internet:Yes sbi

R.SUBBIAH, J

sbi

Pre-delivery order in O.A.No.678 of 2013 in C.S.No.610 of 2013

¶94

DATED: 2 .12.2014

¶95

¶96

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶97

Reserved on : 17.11.2014 Date of verdict: 2.12.2014

¶98

CORAM

¶99

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶100

Application No.678 of 2013 in C.S.No.610 of 2013

¶101

1.S.Rathinammal 2.S.Kumaravelu 3.S.Saravana Kumar ... Applicants

¶102

vs.

¶103

1.C.Chamundeeswari 2.S.Dhanalakshmi 3.C.Sivasubramaniam 4.C.Balasubramaniam 5.S.Arumugam 6.S.Dhakshinamoorthy 7.S.Vedachalam 8.S.Geethypriyan 9.Minor S.Nava Vignesh 10.Minor S.Narayanamoorthi 11.Minor B.Sakthivel 12.Minor Thirumoorthy 13.S.N.Thiyagarajan 14.T.Manivannan 15.T.Ravindran 16.T.Rajakumar ... Respondents

¶104

The present application has been filed by the applicants/ plaintiffs under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. to grant an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents 13 to 16 / defendants 13 to 16, their men, agents,

¶105

¶106

servants or anybody claiming right either under or through them from in any manner altering or changing the character of item No.II of the suit schedule properties pending disposal of the suit in C.S.No.610 of 2013.

¶107

For applicants : Mr.K.V.Babu

¶108

For Respondents : Mr.P.M.Bakthavatchalam, for D.1 to D.8

¶109

Mr.C.Shankar, for R.13 to D.16

Mrs. K Subbulakshmi v. Mr. R. Ulagalanthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. K Subbulakshmi v. Mr. R. Ulagalanthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.R.M.Muthuramalingam Vs

K. Malleeswari Vs T.D. Kumar

Mr.B.Rajasekaran Vs

Heerachand Jain Vs B. Gajaraj

M/S.Canadian Crystaline Water Vs S.M.Chakrapani and Another

D.Venkateswara Rao Vs