Disposed

Arulmigu Swami Nellaiyappar v. M.Samsudeen Rowther

Madras HC8 Mar 2022CMP(MD)/927/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted a status quo ante order in a civil appeal regarding disputed property, restraining respondents from making any further alterations or constructions while the main appeal is pending. The court accepted respondents' explanation that a new shed was rebuilt after a fire accident but directed them not to undertake any additional construction.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to put up any further construction; status quo ante order granted in C.M.P.(MD)No.927 of 2022.

Arulmigu Swami Nellaiyappar Vs M.Samsudeen Rowther — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.M.P.(MD)No.927 of 2022

¶2

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

¶3

Tuesday, the Eighth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Two

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice R.THARANI

¶6

C.M.P.(MD)No.927 of 2022 in S.A.(MD)No.403 of 2016

¶7

ARULMIGU SWAMI NELLAIYAPPAR ARULTHARUM GANDHIMATHI AMBAL THIRUKOVIL, THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUNELVELI TOWN. ... PETITIONER/ APPELLANT

¶8

¶9

1 M.SAMSUDEEN ROWTHER

2 SHEIK ABDUL KHADAR

3 PAKIR MOHAMMED

4 YOUSUF

5 MOHAMMED HANIBA ... RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to grant an order of Injunction restraining the Respondents herein from making any developments by way of any alterations or further constructions in the Petition Schedule Properties which is the subject matter of the suit in O.S. No.305 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court,Tirunelveli pending disposal of the main Second Appeal.

¶15

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶16

jpUbey;ntyp tl;lk; bjd;fyk; fpuhkk; mad; g[";ir rh;nt vz; 785-1 y; 1/82 rh;nt vz; 785-3 y; 2/23k; ,jpy; 12 mo 3 m';Fyk; ePsj;jpYk; 50 mo mfyj;jpYk; fl;lg;gl;l fl;olj;ija[k; 95 mo 3 m';Fyk; ePsj;jpYk; 39 mo mfyj;jpYk; fl;lg;gl;l fl;olj;ija[k; 90 mo ePsk; 36 mo 3 m';Fyk; mfyj;jpy; fl;lg;gl;l fl;olj;jpa[k; fl;lg;gl;l fl;olk; jgrpy; tpguk; rhp/

¶17

PRAYER IN S.A.(MD)No.403 of 2016:

¶18

To set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Appellate Court dated 30.12.2008 made in A.S.No.45 of 2007 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court dated 08.12.2005 made in O.S.No.305 of 2002 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, and to allow the Second Appeal.

¶19

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

¶20

1/2

¶21

C.M.P.(MD)No.927 of 2022

¶22

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.P.MAHARAJAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.M.P.SENTHIL, Advocate for respondents, the court made the following order:-

¶23

This petition has been filed to grant an order of injunction restraining the respondents herein from making any developments by way of any alterations or further constructions in the petition schedule properties which is the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.305 of 2002, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, pending disposal of the main second appeal.

¶24

On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the respondents have put up construction in the disputed property and a status qua order is to be passed to prevent the respondents from constructing any further.

¶25

On the side of the respondents, it is stated that already a huge shed was put up by the respondents in the disputed property. But, due to a fire accident, the respondents were constrained to put up a new one in the very same place. Only a temporary shed half the size of the earlier shed was put up by the respondents. The construction was over and the respondents undertake not to make any other construction. Colour Xerox copy of the shed was filed.

¶26

The respondents are hereby directed not to put up any further construction and an order of status qua is granted and CMP (MD)No.927 of 2022 is disposed of as above.

¶27

08/03/2022 / TRUE COPY / / /2022

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶29

¶30

1 THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT MUNSIF TIRUNELVELI.

¶31

2 THE PRICIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE TIRUNELVELI.

¶32

+1 CC to Mr.S.P.MAHARAJAN, Advocate ( SR-1802[I] dated 08/03/2022 ) ORDER IN

¶33

C.M.P.(MD)No.927 of 2022 in S.A.(MD)No.403 of 2016

¶34

Date :08/03/2022

¶35

MK/VR/SAR.II/09.03.2022/2P/4C

¶36

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

¶37

2/2

Arulmigu Swami Nellaiyappar v. M.Samsudeen Rowther

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arulmigu Swami Nellaiyappar v. M.Samsudeen Rowther

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

Dhanaroja, Vs Ramanathan

N.Ramakrishnan Vs S.Karuppiah (Died)

Jose Stephan Vs John Gilbert

Ramasamy(Died) Vs Palaniyappan (Died)

S.Ramachandran (Died) Vs K.S.G.Subburaj (Died)

V.Parasuraman Vs a.Balachandran