Disposed

Kalaiselvi, v. Petchiammal (Died) Seeni (Died) Periyakaruppan (Died) 1.BHAHAATHAL

Madras HC16 Mar 2023SA(MD)/532/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the suit was not maintainable for bare injunction as a suit for declaration was required due to clouded title. The Court disposed of the second appeal by granting liberty to the appellant to file a suit for declaration as prayed. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the appellant to file a suit for declaration. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

Kalaiselvi, Vs Petchiammal (Died) Seeni (Died)… — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

S.A(MD).No.532 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

S.A(MD).No.532 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD).Nos.7216 and 7217 of 2022

¶7

Kalaiselvi

¶8

... Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Petchiammal (died) Seeni (died) 1.Bhahaathal

¶11

2.Karpuram

¶12

3.Velammal

¶13

4.Sakkammal

¶14

5.Backiyam

¶15

6.Narayanan

¶16

7.Ramar

¶17

8.Sakthivel

¶18

9.Mahalingam ... Respondents/Respondents/LRs of the defendants

¶19

Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to call for the records relating to the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2022 passed in A.S.No.37 of 2018 by the Subordinate Judge, Tirumangalam confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2018 passed in O.S.No.204 of 2010 by the District Munsif Court, Tirumangalam and set aside the same.

¶20

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

S.A(MD).No.532 of 2022

¶22

For Appellant : Mr.D.Malaichamy

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Since the appellant has filed a suit only for bare injunction, the Courts below by their concurrent findings have held that the suit is not maintainable as the appellant ought to have filed a suit for declaration. Admittedly, there is a cloud over the title of the suit schedule property, as seen from the defence raised by the defendants in their written statement. Therefore, necessarily the appellant/plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for declaration.

¶25

The learned counsel for the appellant would now submit that liberty may be granted to the appellant/plaintiff to file a suit for declaration. He has also made an endorsement in the Court bundle seeking such liberty.

¶26

The said endorsement is recorded by this Court. No prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if such a relief is granted. In view of the fact that the suit has been dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has not filed a suit for declaration, this second appeal is disposed

¶27

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

S.A(MD).No.532 of 2022

¶29

of by granting liberty as prayed for by the appellant. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶30

16.03.2023

¶31

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Rmk

¶32

¶33

1.The District Munsif, Thirumangalam. 2.The Subordinate Judge, Thirumangalam.

¶34

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

S.A(MD).No.532 of 2022

¶36

ABDUL QUDDHOSE.J.,

¶37

Rmk

¶38

S.A(MD).No.532 of 2022

¶39

16.03.2023

¶40

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Kalaiselvi, v. Petchiammal (Died) Seeni (Died) Periyakaruppan (Died) 1.BHAHAATHAL

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalaiselvi, v. Petchiammal (Died) Seeni (Died) Periyakaruppan (Died) 1.BHAHAATHAL

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

C.Rajam, Vs The District Educational Officer

Masilamani, Vs The Junior Engineer

M.Devasena, Vs Arulmigu Koodal Alagar Temple

Soosairaj Vs Soosaimanickam

Natarajan Vs Vellaisamy Nadalvar (Died)

P.Shanmugam (Died),S.Palanichamy Vs M.Rajakrishnasamy