Two applications seeking rent deposit and lease participation were dismissed as not maintainable because the underlying partition suit did not claim any relief regarding rentals or mesne profits.
Both applications A.Nos.2319 & 2320 of 2022 were held as not maintainable and dismissed.
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.
A.Nos.2319 & 2320 of 2022
A.Nos.2319 & 2320 of 2022 in C.S.No.56 of 2022
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
These two applications have been filed seeking a direction against the tenant who is running a hotel in the suit property from paying any rent to the 1st defendant, who according to the plaintiff is collecting the monthly rents for a further restraint that no further lease agreement should be entered into without the participation of the plaintiff.
1/2
A.Nos.2319 & 2320 of 2022
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
ssi
seek any further relief but, it would always be appropriate that the applications are filed on amendment of the plaint seeking appropriate reliefs.
05.09.2022
ssi
A.Nos.2319 & 2320 of 2022 in C.S.No.56 of 2022
2/2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether applications filed separately for depositing rental payments and requiring plaintiff's participation in future leases are maintainable when the principal suit seeks only partition.
Whether applications should be dismissed without merit examination when the plaint does not seek relief regarding rental amounts or mesne profits.
Whether a plaintiff should seek appropriate relief through an amendment of the plaint rather than separate applications.
Plaintiff
1st Defendant
C.V.Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
