Anandha Kumar v. L.P. Saravanan
Case brief
What is this about?
In a civil revision petition challenging an order restoring possession, the High Court modified the trial court's order. Since the original property was damaged by fire and no restoration was physically possible, the Court deemed the plaintiffs to be in possession and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within four months.
What did the court decide?
The order restoring possession was modified; plaintiffs deemed in possession; trial court directed to dispose of suit within four months; petitioners restrained from alienating property.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.(MD)No.280 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 25.06.2021 Delivered on : 06.08.2021 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI C.R.P.(MD)No.280 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD)No.1238 of 2018
Anandha Kumar ... Petitioner/1st Respondent /1st Defendant
Vs.
1.L.P.Saravanan 2.L.P.Iyyappan 3.L.P.Thiyagarajan ... Respondents1 to 3/Petitioners/Plaintiffs
4.V.R.Y.Vittabai @ Nalinidevi Parambarai Arangavalar of Madhu Sri Akkabai Ammani Chatram
... 4th Respondent /2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order in I.A.No.364 of 2017 in O.S.No.120 of 2015, dated 01.11.2017, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Pattukottai.
For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar For Respondents : Mr.B.Rooban
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order restoring possession in favour of the writ petitioner should be modified in view of the pending appeal and the fire damage to the property.
Whether the plaintiffs are deemed to be in possession given the circumstances of the case.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Anandha Kumar
- respondent
L.P.Saravanan
- respondent
L.P.Iyyappan
- respondent
L.P.Thiyagarajan
- respondent
V.R.Y.Vittabai
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court