Arul Rajan a. v. v.S.K.Kumaran
Case brief
What is this about?
The plaintiff sought a declaration of invalidity of a lease, permanent injunction, and costs under CPC Order VII Rule 1. Counsel withdrew prayer (a) and (c). The defendant admitted non-interference. The Court decreed the suit solely for permanent injunction (prayer b) granting no order as to costs.
What did the court decide?
Suit decreed only in terms of sub-paragraph (b) for permanent injunction; all other reliefs given up.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 11.12.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
Tr.C.S.No.728 of 2018
and A.No.8381 of 2018
and O.A.No.973 of 2018
Mr.A.Arul Rajan, S/o.Mr.Aruputham,
Proprietor of “Arul Traders”
No.T/B 92, Anna Fruit Market,
Koyambedu, Chennai 600 092. .. Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Mr.V.S.K.Kumaran,
S/o.V.S.Kuppan,
No.104, First Cross Street,
Chinmaiya Nagar,
Chennai – 600 092.
2.Mr.K.Venugopal,
S/o.C.Krishana Gounder,
Plot No.235, 10 th Street,
Karpaga Nagar,
Ko-Puthur,
Madurai – 625 007. .. Defendants
This Civil Suit is preferred, under Order VII Rule – 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Praying to
a) Declaration declaring the lease agreement dated 22.01.2018 entered between the defendants, registered as document number 273/2018 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Anna Nagar is illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff and thus render justice;
b) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agent, servant or anybody acting on behalf of them in any manner disturbing and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and in any manner disposes the Plaintiff from the suit schedule property except due process of law and thus render justice;
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit is fit for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of CPC where the plaintiff withdraws declarations and costs, and the defendant admits non-interference with possession.
Whether the suit should be decreed only for permanent injunction after other prayers are given up.
Parties & counsel
- respondent
V.S.K.Kumaran
- respondent
K.Venugopal
Coram
M.Sundar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court