Court recorded a Division Bench order rejecting the plaint in Civil Suit No.326 of 2021 and directed the suit to be struck off registers. Connected applications were consequently closed.
Suit struck off registers; connected applications closed with no costs.
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.S.No.326 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.10.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Civil Suit No.326 of 2021
and
Original Application No.683 of 2021
and
Applications Nos.3917, 3918 and 4116 of 2021
1.G.Sankarabushanam 2.Anbuselvi 3.N.Rajesh Kumar 4.N.Selvakumar 5.Arulbhavani 6.G.Sivaraj 7.Uma 8.Prema ... Plaintiffs
versus
1.E.Devamani 2.E.Gunamani 3.E.Jagadeesan 4.E.Lakshmi Sekar 5.E.Saroja 6.E.Jayaseelan 7.E.Rani Ethiraj @ E.Rani 8.E.Amudha 9.E.Bhaskar 10.E.Sridhar 11.E.Arul 12.E.Devatha
1/5
C.S.No.326 of 2021
13.E.Karnal 14.E.Ebi 15.E.Chandra 16.E.Rajan 17.E.Ponmudi
... Defendants
Prayer: The Civil Suit filed under Order VI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC., seeking to pass decree and Judgment against the defendants that to declare that the 1st plaintiff is the absolute owner of Suit B Schedule Property and to declare the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the Suit C Schedule Property and direct the Defendants 7, 9, 10, 11 & 16 to hand over and deliver vacant possession of the Suit C Schedule property to the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, representatives or any one claiming through him/her/them or in trust for him/her/them, from in any manner disturbing plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the Suit Schedule B & C property and for the costs of the suit.
For Plaintiffs : Mr.V.Manohar For D1 to D17 : Mr.V.Balakrishnan
JUDGMENT
A Memo had been filed by the learned counsel for the defendants which is as follows:
2/5
C.S.No.326 of 2021
“ In the above-mentioned matter, reject the plaint application Appl NO.4115 of 2021 in CS.No.326 of 2021 was filed and the same was dismissed on 23/03/2022. Against the dismissal order of the Reject the plaint Application Appl NO.4115 of 2021 in CS.No.326 of 2021, Appeal O.S.A.No.230 of 2022 was filed.
It is submitted that the Honble Division bench by its order dated 28.03.2022 allowed the O.S.A.No.230 of 2022 with cost and the plaint in the Suit CS.No.326 of 2021 was rejected.
It is submitted that Honble Division bench by its order dated 28.03.2022 rejected the plaint in the Suit CS.No.326 of 2021, therefore I pray this Hon'ble court to record the order passed in OSA.No.230 of 2022 and dismiss the suit C.S.No.326 of 2021 and thus render Justice.
Dated at Chennai on this the 10th day of October 2022.
Sd/ .......
MS1010/2018 1010/2022 Counsel for Defendants”
3/5
C.S.No.326 of 2021
28.09.2022 in O.S.A.No.230 of 2022 is also enclosed.
struck off by the registers of the Court. No costs. Consequently, the connected applications stands closed.
12.10.2022
Index:Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No ssi
4/5
C.S.No.326 of 2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.,
ssi
C.S.No.326 of 2021
12.10.2022
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suit should be dismissed following the registered Division Bench order rejecting the plaint.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
1.E.Devamani... 17.E.Ponmudi
C.V. Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
