Disposed

R.Devaki v. D.Ganesan

Madras HC14 Sept 2020CMP(MD)/2889/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil miscellaneous petition under CPC Order 39 seeking an interim injunction to prevent alienation of suit properties pending an appeal, the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court closed the petition after recording the respondents' undertaking not to alienate or create third-party rights in the properties, deeming further orders unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

No order passed; petition closed due to respondents' undertaking not to alienate properties.

R.Devaki Vs D.Ganesan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

C.M.P.(MD).No.2889 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.09.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶6

C.M.P.(MD)No.2889 of 2020 in A.S.(MD).No.85 of 2020

¶7

R.Devaki 2. V.Lakshmi Praba 3. S.Revathi R.Mlalthi (Died) 4. D.Rajasekaran 5. R.PRakash ... Petitioners/Appellants

¶8

Vs. 1. D.Ganesan 2. S.Meera Bai 3. N.Visalatha 4. S.Giridaran 5. S.Gauthaman T.Anusuya (Died) 6. T.Raghavan 7. S.Jalaja 8. S.Muralidaran 9. R.Vanaja 10. N.Chandrasekaran 11. R.Aravindh ... Respondents/Respondents

¶9

Prayer in C.M.P.(MD)No.2889 of 2020 : Petition filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C, to pass an order more in the nature of interim injunction restraining the respondents herein and their men, agents, etc., from any manner alienating or encumbering the petition scheduled properties which is the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.23 of 2016 on the file of I-Additional District Court, Tuticorin, pending disposal of the main Appeal Suit.

¶10

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

¶11

1/3

¶12

C.M.P.(MD).No.2889 of 2020

¶13

Prayer in AS(MD). 85/ 2020 :

¶14

Appeal Suit filed under Order 41, Rule I r/w section 96 of CPC to set aside the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2020 passed in OS No.23 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tuticorin.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Nallathambi For Respondents : R.Pon Karthikeyan

¶16

ORDER

¶17

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J. ]

¶18

The appellants are the plaintiffs 2 to 4, 6 and 8. The Suit for partition and other consequential relief in O.S.No.23 of 2016, on the file of I Additional District Court, Thoothukudi, came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 06.01.2020 and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

¶19

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants would submit that taking advantage of the judgment and decree in their favour, the respondents are trying to alienate the properties and pending disposal of the suit, the plaintiffs had the benefit of interim order status quo in respect of 7 schedules in I.A.No.70 of 2016 and prays for appropriate orders.

¶20

Mr.R.Pon Karthikeyan, learned Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent has filed the counter affidavit and has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit and submitted that pending disposal of the suit, the respondents have no intention to alienate or create the third party rights in respect of the properties in question and therefore, the apprehension expressed by the petitioners/appellants is wholly unfolded.

¶21

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.

¶22

It is relevant to extract the portion of the paragraph No.7, in the counter affidavit:-

¶23

“ ...As we have not proposed to alienate the suit schedule properties and no steps were taken by us for any disposal or alienation of the suit properties and in the absence of any such averments, the present application seeking interim injunction not to alienate the petition mentioned properties is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.”

¶24

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

¶25

2/3

¶26

C.M.P.(MD).No.2889 of 2020

¶27

The said undertaking given in paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit is placed on record and in the light of the same, no orders are necessary in this miscellaneous petition and therefore, it is closed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar ()

¶30

// True Copy //

¶31

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶32

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶33

Copy to:

¶34

I Additional District Court, Tuticorin.

¶35

C.M.P.(MD).No.2889 of 2020 in A.S.(MD).No.85 of 2020 14.09.2020

¶36

pkn SDS (21.09.2020) 3P-2C

¶37

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

¶38

3/3

R.Devaki v. D.Ganesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Devaki v. D.Ganesan

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

The Chief Educational Officer, Vs a.Davidson Tharmaraj

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Vs Pa.Pachai Perumal

M.Masanam Vs The Assistant Director and Personal Assistant to Collector

N.R.Deepa Vs T.G.Vinay

P. Selvakumar Vs the District Collector

The State of Tamilnadu Vs K.Saleem