Dismissed

M. Sundari v. K. Ashok Kumar

Madras HC23 Oct 2017CRP/3725/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging a trial court order that rejected an application to examine a vendor as a witness. The court held that since possession was an admitted fact and title was disputed via written statement, the witness testimony was unnecessary, upholding the trial court's decision.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to costs.

M. Sundari Vs K. Ashok Kumar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23.10.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

CRP (PD) No. 3725 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.17293 of 2017
1. M.Sundari
2. M.Murugesan
3. M.Ganapathi .. Petitioners
Vs
1. K.Ashok Kumar
2. Dr.P.Gayathri .. Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and decreetal order dated 19.06.2017 passed by the XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.7508 of 2017 in O.S.No.828 of 2014. For Petitioners : Mr. P. Vijendran

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

This Civil Revision Petition arises against the fair and decreetal

¶10

order dated 19.06.2017 passed by the XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶12

¶13

Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.7508 of 2017 in O.S.No.828 of 2014.

¶14

The petitioners filed a suit in O.S. No. 828 of 2014 for

¶15

permanent injunction against the respondents. In the said suit, the petitioner also filed an application in I.A. No.13854 of 2015, under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code, to implead Mrs. Siyathammal as a

¶16

party in the said suit. After hearing both the parties, the said application was dismissed by the trial court. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed C.R.P.(PD) No.1039 of 2017 and this Court by order

¶17

dated 17.03.2017 dismissed the revision. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioners filed another I.A. No. 7508 of 2017 before the trial court under Order 16 Rule 1(2) r/w 151 of CPC and sought to examine the said Siyathammal as a witness in the said suit. The court below dismissed the said application, without appreciating the contention of

¶18

the petitioners. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

¶20

the petitioners claim the suit property on the basis of the sale deed

¶21

executed by the said Siyathammal, in favour of the 1^st petitioner's husband. Hence, the aforesaid person has to be examined as a witness in

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

¶24

the said suit and so the order passed by the trial court is liable to be set

¶25

aside.

¶26

On perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner

¶27

has filed the suit for permanent injunction against the respondents/ defendants 1 and 2. Pending the suit, the petitioners have filed an application in I.A. No. 13854/2015 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead their vendor Siyathammal, as a party respondent in the said suit. The said application was dismissed on 31.01.2017. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed C.R.P No. 1039/2017 before this Court. The said revision petition was also dismissed on 17.03.2017. Again, an application in I.A. No. 7508 of 2017, under Order 16 Rule 1(2) r/w 151 of CPC has been filed to examine the said Siyathammal, as a witness. The relief sought for in the suit is, for permanent injunction against the respondents/ defendants and the respondents have filed their written

¶28

statement and had disputed the title of the suit property.

¶29

It is an admitted fact that the present suit has been filed

¶30

on the basis of the possession in the suit property. It is for the petitioner to establish before the court below, on the basis of the documentary

¶31

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶32

¶33

evidences to prove that the petitioners are in possession of the suit

¶34

property. Hence, the court below has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners to examine Siyathammal as a witness. Therefore,

¶35

there is no warrant to interfere with the order passed by the court

¶36

below.
6. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same
is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed. No order as to costs.
23.10.2017
Index: Yes/ No
avr
To
The XVIII Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶37

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶38

¶39

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.,

¶40

avr

¶41

CRP (PD) No. 3725 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.17293 of 2017
23.10.2017

¶42

http://www.judis.nic.in

M. Sundari v. K. Ashok Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Sundari v. K. Ashok Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.M.Sankaran Vs Siva Kanchi Udasi Mutt@

Gokula Rao Vs Prema Kumari

R.M.S.Vasantha Vs Porkalaiselvi

Kunjarammal Vs Kandasamy

Vijayabalan Vs Murugaiyan

R.Senthil Vs Nallammal