K.B.Venkatesan v. P.N.Balaji
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal against interim injunction order. Court upheld order based on physical possession despite co-owner status, dismissing appeal.
What did the court decide?
Settled position holding possession follows title; interim injunction maintained to prevent disturbance of possession.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 19.11.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
C.M.A. No.1710 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.12590 of 2020
K.B.Venkatesan ... Appellant
-vs-
1.P.N.Balaji
2.P.N.Raghavendiran ... Respondents
Prayer:
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair and decretal order in I.A. No.1 of 2019 in O.S. No.286 of 2018 dated 17.12.2019 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tiruvallur.
For Appellant : Ms.Sandiya
For Respondents : No appearance
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an ad-interim injunction can be granted restraining a co-owner when respondents have physical possession pending a title suit
Whether the settlement of law that possession follows title precludes interim injunction in a partition suit
Whether the Trial Court erred in granting temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC
Parties & counsel
- appellant
K.B.Venkatesan
- respondent
P.N.Balaji
- respondent
P.N.Raghavendiran
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court