Allowed

Manikandan, v. Dhanalakshmi

Madras HC15 Sept 2016CMP(MD)/6002/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed a petition seeking the return of the original partition deed Ex.A2. The Court directed that the respondent be required to produce a certified copy of the document before the original is handed over to the petitioner, finding no prejudice to the parties.

What did the court decide?

Registry directed to return original Ex.A2 to petitioner upon production of a certified copy of the same.

Manikandan, Vs Dhanalakshmi — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

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

¶2

Thursday, the Fifteenth day of September Two Thousand Sixteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.S.SUNDAR

¶5

CMP(MD) No.6002 of 2016 IN SA(MD) No.760 of 2015

¶6

MANIKANDAN, ... PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶7

1 DHANALAKSHMI,

¶8

2 DURAIRAJ,

¶9

3 SURESHKUMAR,

¶10

4 RAMKUMAR, ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶11

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to direct the registry to accept the certified Xerox copy of Ex.A2 dated 12.03.2009 filed in the trial court in O.S.No.20 of 2010 in the place of its original and hand over the original of Ex.A2 dated 12.03.2009 to the Petitioner herein and pass such further or other order as this Honourable Court

¶12

PRAYER IN SA(MD) No.760 of 2015:

¶13

Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.13/2014 on the file of Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram dated:10.02.2015 confirming the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.20/2010 on the file of the Sub Judge, Paramakudi dated:14.11.2013.

¶14

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. S.NATARAJAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of M/s.D.Senthil, Advocate for R1 to R4, the court made the following order:-

¶15

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the Registry to accept the certified xerox copy of Ex.A2, dated 12.03.2009 filed in the trial court in O.S.No.20 of 2010 in the place of its original and hand over the original of Ex.A2, dated 12.03.2009 to the petitioner herein.

¶16

It is contended that the subject matter of the above appeal is the property purchased in the name of the petitioner's mother and the properties covered under Ex.A.2 are not the subject matter of the suit as well as the present second appeal. Since the original https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ partition deed/Ex.A.2 is required by the petitioner for availing a loan from the Bank, he has come forward with the present petition.

¶17

3.There was no representation for the respondents on earlier occasion. Even Today, there is no representation for the respondents.

¶18

4.From the judgments of the Courts below, it could be seen that the partition deed/Ex.A.2 is not with reference to the suit property.

¶19

5.In view of the factual position, this Court is of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the original of Ex.A.2 is returned to the petitioner.

¶20

6.Accordingly, this petition is allowed, however, subject to the production of a certified copy of Ex.A.2, in addition to the xerox copy of document Ex.A.2. Upon production of the certified copy of Ex.A.2, dated 12.03.2009, the Registry is directed to return the original document of Ex.A.2 to the petitioner/appellant in the Second Appeal.

sd/-

15/09/2016

/ TRUE COPY /

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

¶25

¶26

1 THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAMANATHAPURAM

¶27

2 THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, PARAMAKUDI

¶28

+1. C.C. to M/S. S.NATARAJAN Advocate SR.No.52807

¶29

Copy to:The Section Officer VR Section,

¶30

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai

¶31

sm:CK:SAR 1:20/09/2016:2P/5C

¶32

ORDER

¶33

IN CMP(MD) No.6002 of 2016 IN

¶34

SA(MD) No.760 of 2015 Date :15/09/2016

¶35

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

Manikandan, v. Dhanalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan, v. Dhanalakshmi

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

Kumaresan, Vs a.Kasi

Parameswaran Pillai (Died) Vs Chellammal

Kuppatchi @ Suppammal (Died) Vs Maruthai

K.K.M.Nagoor Kani, Vs M.a.Sheik Dawood

The Special Tahsildar Vs Ammini George

Palanisamy Vs Nachammal