Dismissed

Prabakaran v. Kumaresan

Madras HC22 Jun 2016CMP(MD)/4920/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a civil miscellaneous petition seeking temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from alienating suit properties in a partition suit. The court held that since the plaintiff failed to establish ownership, the respondent was entitled to treat the property as his own.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking ad-interim injunction was dismissed.

Prabakaran Vs Kumaresan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶2

Wednesday, the Twenty Second day of June Two Thousand Sixteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Honble Mr.Justice NOOTY. RAMAMOHANA RAO and The Honble Mr.Justice S.S.SUNDAR

¶5

CMP(MD) No.4920 of 2016 IN AS(MD) No.79 of 2016

¶6

PRABAKARAN ... PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶7

¶8

KUMARESAN ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶9

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to pass an order granting Interim Injunction restraining the respondent from alienating or encumbering the properties which are the subject matters in OS.No.105/2014 on the file of the II Additional Ditrict Court, Trichirapalli, pending disposal of the above AS.(MD).No.79/2016 and thus render justice.

¶10

(Encl: Xerox Copy of Schedule of Property)

¶11

ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. M.V.VENKATASESHAN, Advocate for the petitioner, the court made the following order:-

¶12

The plaintiff in the suit for partition, who is the appellant in the accompanying Appeal Suit, filed this civil miscellaneous petition seeking for ad-interim injunction to restrain the respondent from alienating or encumbering the suit scheduled property.

¶13

2.Since the plaintiff failed to establish his right of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ownership and the consequential right to seek division of the

¶14

property before the Civil Court, it goes without saying that the defendant in the suit, the respondent herein, is liable to be treated as a true owner of the suit schedule property. Normally, a true owner cannot be injuncted from enjoying his immovable property in the manner considered appropriate by him.

¶15

3.For the aforementioned reasons, we consider that no case is made out for grant of injunction, as prayed for. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. However, it goes without saying that pending Appeal Suit, being an extension of the Original Suit, any alienation or encumbrance will abide by the result in this appeal.

¶16

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶17

¶18

THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TRICHIRAPALLI.

¶19

+1. C.C. to M/S. M.V.VENKATASESHAN Advocate SR.No. 32524

ORDER IN

Date :22/06/2016

SRM

TE/DB/SAR-I : 28/06/2016 : 2P/3C

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Prabakaran v. Kumaresan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabakaran v. Kumaresan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Vs Maragathavalli

S.Shanmugam, S/O.Subramania Vs the Commissioner

Teachers Recruitment Board, Vs S.Hema Malini

Madurai Central Market Vs the Assistant Engineer

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs P.G.Surya

K.Raveendra Retnam Vs the Govt of Tamilnadu