Dismissed

A.Sundarsanan v. S.Ambika

Madras HC20 Sept 2021CRP/2018/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application seeking recovery of jewelry. The High Court held that the lower court's dismissal based on lack of proof was correct. The petitioner may stake claims if he can prove the jewelry was parted with to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was disposed of. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed. No costs.

A.Sundarsanan Vs S.Ambika — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD)No.2018 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.09.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)No.2018 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.15304 of 2021
(Through Video Conference)
A. Sudarsanan ...Petitioner
Versus
S. Ambika ...Respondent

¶7

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the Fair and Decretal order dated 21.04.2021 made in I.A.No.815/2018 in H.M.O.P.No.4 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Kanchipuram, and to set aside the same.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sathiyamoorthy

¶9

*****

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking directions of the learned

¶12

Sub Judge, Kanchipuram, in I.A.No.815 of 2018 in H.M.O.P.No.4 of 2013,

¶13

dated 21.04.2021.

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

________Page 1 of 4

¶16

C.R.P.(PD)No.2018 of 2021

¶17

This I.A.No.815 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner seeking for

¶18

direction to the respondent to return the Rettai Pettai Gold Chain of six sovereign, one sovereign of Gold Ring and one sovereign of gold chain worth about Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶19

On considering the rival submissions and on perusal of records, the learned Sub Judge, Kanchipuram dismissed the petition stating that there is no proof filed by the petitioner as of now to show that this jewelery is in the custody of the respondent and dismissed the petition. Against the said order of dismissal, this Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

¶21

should be given an opportunity to produce the evidence with regard to the availability of the jewelery with the respondent. He also submitted that only during the enquiry, he can elicit that the jewelery is available.

¶22

This Court finds that the dismissal of the petition on the ground

¶23

that the petitioner has not produced any proof to show the availability of his jewelery with the respondent cannot be faulted. However, if the petitioner is

¶24

able to prove that he parted his jewelery to his wife/respondent, he can stake his claims.

¶25

Therefore, the learned Sub Judge, Kanchipuram dispose the claim

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶27

________Page 2 of 4

¶28

C.R.P.(PD)No.2018 of 2021

¶29

of the petitioner on merits and on the basis of the evidence available and in accordance with the law in the main petition. With the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition is Disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

20.09.2021
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
sts/jai
To:
The Principal Sub Judge,
Kanchipuram

¶31

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.,

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶33

________Page 3 of 4

¶34

C.R.P.(PD)No.2018 of 2021

¶35

sts/jai

¶36

Order made in
C.R.P.(PD)No.2018 of 2021
Dated:
20.09.2021

¶37

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶38

________Page 4 of 4

A.Sundarsanan v. S.Ambika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Sundarsanan v. S.Ambika

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

P.Ayyamperumal Irs, M.a,.M.L Vs the Manager

Revathy Vs Vasuki Ammal (Died)

M.Abdulla Basha Vs M.Abdul Rahman

S. Santhamani, Vs N. Palanivelu

Arulmighu Parasuramalingeswar Public Charitable Trust Vs Arulmighu Parasuramalingeswar Temple Religious

V.Soundararajan Vs v.Venkatesan