Disposed

K.Pattammal v. J.Raghavendran

Madras HC20 Nov 2019CRP/4511/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition challenged the trial court's dismissal of an application to reject a plaint on merits due to jurisdictional defect. The court observed that parties claimed distinct properties, directed a potential amendment to the plaint's schedule, and disposed of the revision against costs without adjudicating land title.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with no costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

K.Pattammal Vs J.Raghavendran — Partition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD).No.4511 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.11.2019

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶6

C.R.P.(PD).No.4511 of 2013
M.P.No. 1 of 2013
1. K. Pattammal
2. K. Anandan ... Petitioners
v.
1. J. Raghavendran
2. R. Sireesha ... Respondents

¶7

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the petition and docket order dated 06.09.2013 passed in I.A.No.18719 of 2011 in O.S.No.10391 of 2010 on the file of the V Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.S. Balaji

¶9

For Respondents : Mr. T. Sunderrajan

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in Page 1 / 6

¶11

C.R.P.(PD).No.4511 of 2013

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.18719 of

¶14

2011 in O.S.No.10391 of 2010 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City

¶15

Civil Judge, Chennai, the defendants have filed the above Civil Revision

¶16

Petition.

¶17

The respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.10391 of 2010 for permanent injunction in respect of Survey Nos. 222/1, 222/2, 222/2B, 223, 215/2 Part of Arumbakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, measuring an extent of 2229 sq.ft.

¶18

Earlier, the 1^st petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.8989 of 1993

¶19

on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, as against one Yogalakshmi, for permanent injunction, which was decreed ex parte on 01.03.1996. The said suit was filed in respect of Survey No.223 (Part) Arumbakkam Village, measuring an extent of 2 grounds and 12 sq.ft.

¶20

http://www.judis.nic.in Page 2 / 6

¶21

C.R.P.(PD).No.4511 of 2013

¶22

It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of the decree

¶23

obtained by the 1^st petitioner in respect of Survey No.223 (Part), the respondents have filed the present suit in O.S.No.10391 of 2010 for permanent injunction including the Survey No.223 (Part). Therefore, the petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaint.

¶24

The Trial Court, after taking into consideration the case of

¶25

both the parties, dismissed the application. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants have filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

¶26

Mr.S. Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶27

submitted that the petitioners-defendants are not claiming any right or

¶28

title in respect of Survey Nos. 222/1, 222/2, 222/2B and 215/2 Part of Arumbakkam Village. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the

¶29

petitioners are the absolute owners of the Survey No.223 alone.

¶30

Mr.T.Sunderrajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs also submitted that the respondents are not

¶31

claiming any right or title in respect of Survey No.223 and that they are

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in Page 3 / 6

¶33

C.R.P.(PD).No.4511 of 2013

¶34

the absolute owners of Survey Nos. 222/1, 222/2, 222/2B and 215/2 Part of Arumbakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk.

¶35

The submission made by the learned counsel on either side is

¶36

recorded.

¶37

Therefore, I make it clear that the respondents-plaintiffs are claiming right only in respect of Survey Nos. 222/1, 222/2, 222/2B and 215/2 Part of Arumbakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk and not in respect of Survey No.223. Similarly, the petitioners-defendants are also claiming right only in respect of Survey No.223 and not in other Survey Numbers, viz., S.Nos. 222/1, 222/2, 222/2B and 215/2 Part of Arumbakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk. Mr.T.Sunderrajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs submitted that the respondents would file appropriate application to amend the Schedule of property by deleting Survey No.223, for which, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-defendants has no objection. In the event of any confusion in the demarcation of the respective lands, the parties are at liberty to file

¶38

appropriate application either before the concerned authorities or before

¶39

http://www.judis.nic.in Page 4 / 6

¶40

C.R.P.(PD).No.4511 of 2013

¶41

the Trial Court to measure and demarcate their respective lands.

¶42

With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed

¶43

of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
20.11.2019
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non Speaking Order
Rj
To
V Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court,
Chennai.

¶44

http://www.judis.nic.in Page 5 / 6

¶45

C.R.P.(PD).No.4511 of 2013

¶46

¶47

M.DURAISWAMY, J.

¶48

C.R.P.(PD).No.4511 of 2013
M.P.No. 1 of 2013
20.11.2019

¶49

http://www.judis.nic.in Page 6 / 6

K.Pattammal v. J.Raghavendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Pattammal v. J.Raghavendran

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

M.Durai Vs M.Loganathan

R.Natarajan Vs the Director of Khadi&Village

G.Purushothaman Vs the Deputy General Manager

K.S.S.Prasad Vs the Deputy Registrar

District Forest Officer Vs Palani

M.Palanivelu Vs the Secretary to Government