Disposed

Balabisegam v. Jayaramanadar

Madras HC12 Feb 2021CMP(MD)/432/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed the petition seeking an interim injunction against the appellants/respondents from interfering with the petitioner's possession. The court held that while the petitioner holds a decree for recovery, a valid injunction against interference with possession is misconceived given the nature of the decree.

What did the court decide?

Respondents restrained from putting up any permanent construction in the suit property pending disposal of the appeal.

Balabisegam Vs Jayaramanadar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Twelfth day of February Two Thousand and Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

CMP(MD) No.432 of 2021 IN

¶7

SA(MD)No.166 of 2020

¶8

BALABISEGAM ... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶9

¶10

1 JAYARAMANADAR

¶11

2 RAMASANTHIRAN ... RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS

¶12

Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to pass an order of Interim Injunction restraining the Respondents and their men or agents any other persons from interfering the peaceful possession of the petitioners in suit properties of the judgment and decree in A.S.No.87 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi, dated 01.10.2019 reversing the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.476 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi dated 25.04.2017, pending disposal of the Second Appeal.

¶13

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY

¶14

1k; jgrpy;

¶15

njd;fhrp hPb ght+h;rj;jpuk; rh;b fy;Yhuzp fpuhkk;, m.G.rh;Nt vz;.19/6 eph; nf;Nlh; 0.23.5y; fPNohuk; nrz;l; 6k;, m.G.rh;Nt vz;.19/7 nf;Nlh; 0.07.5f;F nrz;l; 19k;, m.G.rh;Nt vz;.19/8 eph; n`f;Nlh; 0.05.5f;F nrz;l; 14k; Mf nrd;l; 39f;F vy;if tlf;fpy; fpoNky; NuhL, Nkw;fpy; ,g;gpujpthjp n[auhk ehlhh; GQ;ir epyk; fpof;fpy; ,g;gpujpthjp epykhf ,Ue;J jw;NghJ kzp ];Nlhh; chpikahsh; GQ;ir, njw;fpy; ,g;gpujpthjp n[auhk ehlhh; (1) FyNrfughz;b ehlhh; (2) MfpNahh;fs; GQ;ir epyk; i\ nrhj;J UDR f;F Kd;G m.G.rh;Nt vz;.19 eph; Vf;fh; 1.95y; 4tJ gq;F nrd;l; 39 Mf Nkw;gb vy;iff;Fs; ,Ue;jJ.

¶16

(tiuglj;jpy; ABCDEFG vdf; fhl;lg;gl;Ls;sJ).

¶17

2k; jgrpy;

¶18

Nkw;gb fy;Y}uzp fpuhkk; m.G.rh;Nt vz;.19/6 n`f;Nlh; 0.23.5y; fPNohuk; nrd;l; 6f;F fpoNky; 6.8 kPl;lh; njd;tly; fPo;jiy 35.6 kPl;lh; Nky;jiy 35.8 kPl;lh; cs;s nrhj;jpw;F vy;if fpof;fpy; 1k; jgrpypd; ,ju gFjp Nkw;fpy; ,g;gpujpthjp n[auhk ehlhh; GQ;ir epyk; tlf;fpy; NuhL njw;fpy; ,jd; 1k; jgrpypd; xU gFjpAk;, ,g;gpujpthjp n[auhkehlhhpd; GQ;ir epyKk;.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (tiuglj;jpy; ABHFG vdf; fhl;lg;gl;Ls;sJ).

¶20

2tJ jgrpy; nrhj;Jk; 1k; jgrpy; nrhj;jpd; xU gFjp MFk;.

¶21

¶22

Prayer in SA(MD)No.166/2020 :

¶23

To set aside the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2019 passed in A.S.No.87 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi, reversing the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2017 passed in O.S.No. 476/2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi by allowing this Second Appeal.

¶24

ORDER : This petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.S.A.AJMALKHAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.V.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, Advocate for the 1^st Respondent, the Court made the following order:-

¶25

The decree holder/respondent in the appeal, who holds a decree for declaration and recovery of possession, has come with this application seeking an injunction restraining the appellants in the appeal/respondents herein from interfering with his possession of the property. The very prayer is misconceived.

¶26

2.Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner would, however, submit that this application was induced by the action of the respondents in altering the physical features of the property and he would contend with an order restraining the respondents from effecting any material alteration in the physical feature of the suit property.

¶27

3.Considering the nature of the decree, that is under challenge, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents herein should be restrained from putting up any permanent structure in the suit property. In view of the same, there will be an order of injunction restraining the respondents from putting up any permanent construction in the suit property till the disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.

¶28

sd/12/02/2021

¶29

/ TRUE COPY /

¶30

/ /2021

¶31

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶32

Madurai - 625 023.

¶33

¶34

THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE, TENKASI.

¶35

THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MUNSIF, TENKASI.

¶36

+1 CC to Mr.S.A.AJMALKHAN, Advocate ( SR-965[I] dated 12/02/2021 ) +1 CC to Mr.D.NALLATHAMBI, Advocate ( SR-989[I] dated 15/02/2021 ) ORDER IN

¶37

CMP(MD) No.432 of 2021 IN SA(MD)No.166 of 2020

¶38

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

¶39

CMR Date :12/02/2021 TE/JC/SAR-IV : 22/02/2021 : 2P/5C

Balabisegam v. Jayaramanadar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balabisegam v. Jayaramanadar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L.Ramasubbu Vs a.Muthuraj

M.K.Keerthik Lawanya Vs P.Santhoshkumar

P.Ramasubbu Vs the Commissioner

M.Duraipandi Vs R.Rani

Geetha, Vs Ganesan

Sanmugaiyah Vs Muthupandi