Disposed

S.Krishnamoorthy, v. Thilagam

Madras HC4 Jan 2017CMP(MD)/11327/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court was presented with a Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking an injunction to restrain respondents from constructing on schedule properties subject to an ongoing civil suit. The Court heard arguments from both sides.

What did the court decide?

The petition was closed. The Court directed the respondents not to put up any construction in Survey No.617/6 or Door No.43 until the disposal of the Second Appeal.

S.Krishnamoorthy, Vs Thilagam — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

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

¶2

Wednesday, the Fourth day of January Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

CMP(MD) No.11327 of 2016 IN SA(MD) No.66 of 2012

¶6

S.KRISHNAMOORTHY

¶7

... PETITIONER/APPELLANT

1 THILAGAM

2 BHARTHI

3 GANGA

4 MANIKANDAN ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to grant an order of injunction restraining the respondents their men and agents from putting up any construction in the B Schedule property which is the subject matter of O.S.No.380 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Kumbakonam and thus render justice.

¶13

Prayer in SASA(MD) No.66 of 2012:-

¶14

Memorandum of Second Appeal against the judgment and decreetal order passed by the Principal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam made in A.S.No. 69 of 2010 dated 28.07.2011, cnfirming the Judgment and decreetal order passed by the I-Additional District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam made in O.S.No. 380 of 2009 dated 16.12.2009.

¶15

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY-XEROX COPY ENCLOSED.

¶16

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. N.KRISHNAVENI, Advocate for the petitioner and of M/S.S.SIVATHILAGAR, Advocate for R1 to R4, the court made the following order:-

¶17

Heard both sides.

¶18

The petitioner/appellant has filed the above petition seeking for an order of injunction restraining the respondents from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ putting up any construction in the “B” schedule property, which is the subject matter in O.S.No.380 of 2009, on the file of I

¶19

Additional District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam.

¶20

In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner has stated that taking advantage of the dismissal of the suit and the first appeal, the respondents are attempting to put up construction in the suit schedule property and that they have also dumped the building materials in the site.

¶21

The respondents filed their counter affidavit wherein the respondents have stated that they are putting up the construction only in Survey No.617/7 and that they are not putting up any construction in Survey No.617/6, which is the suit schedule property. Further, Mr.S.Sivathilakar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents also submitted that the respondents are not putting up any construction in the “B” schedule property which is Door No.43. Further the learned Counsel submitted that the respondents had no intention to put up any construction either in Survey No.617/6 or in Door No.43, which are the two suit properties.

¶22

In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, recording the same, I do not find any reason for granting an order of injunction. However, it is made clear that as submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, the respondents shall not put up any construction either in Survey No.617/6 which is the “A” schedule property or in Door No.43 which is the “B” schedule property till the disposal of the Second Appeal.

¶23

With these observations, this petition is closed. sd/04/01/2017

¶24

/ TRUE COPY /

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

1 THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE,KUMBAKONAM.

¶28

2 THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MUNSIF, KUMBAKONAM.

¶29

+1 cc to M/s.N.Krishnaveni, Advocate in SR.No.738 +1 cc to M/s.S.Sivathilagar, Advocate in SR.No.771 SSL

¶30

CSL/GSV-PM/SAR-I/09.01.2017 : 2P/5C

¶31

CMP(MD) No.11327 of 2016

¶32

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

S.Krishnamoorthy, v. Thilagam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Krishnamoorthy, v. Thilagam

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

Perumal, Vs Veerappan @ Velusamy

The State of Tamilnadu Vs Jeyalakshmi

Raja Vs Marimuthu

Kasiammal W/O.Late Ramasamy Vs a.Mallika

R.Palavesam Vs Subbalakshmi

Elizabeth Vs Masilamani