Dismissed

A.Chadrasekaran v. K.Deivanayagi Ammal

Madras HC19 Jul 2024CRP/2597/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an interlocutory injunction order. The court upheld the lower court's decision, noting that title deeds prima facie establish ownership and any claim regarding joint family funds remains a question for the final disposal of the pending partition suit.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed; the connected contempt petition was closed; no costs.

A.Chadrasekaran Vs K.Deivanayagi Ammal — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD) No.2597 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD) No.2597 of 2024 AND C.M.P.No.13641 of 2024

¶7

1.A.Chandrasekaran

¶8

2.A.Vathchala 3.A.Geetha 4.A.Chennammal ... Petitioners

¶9

¶10

K.Deivanayagi Ammal ... Respondent

¶11

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 13.10.2023 passed in C.M.A. No.9 of 2020 on the file of the Sub Court, Chengam, against I.A.No.314 of 2016 in O.S.No.90 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Chengam.

¶12

For Petitioners : Ms.V.Divia Bharathi

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This civil revision petition arises against the order dated 13.10.2023

¶15

passed by the learned Sub Judge, Chengam, in C.M.A.No.9 of 2020,

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

C.R.P.(PD) No.2597 of 2024

¶19

confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 18.02.2017 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Chengam, in I.A.No.314 of 2016 in O.S.No.90 of 2016.

¶20

The suit in O.S.No.90 of 2016 was presented by the respondent herein. It is her case that she purchased item 1 of the suit property on 05.06.1987 and item 2 of the suit property on 31.03.2003. On the basis of the said sale, she had also mutated the revenue records and she is in possession and enjoyment of the properties. On 02.03.2016, the revision petitioners/defendants caused notice on the respondent/plaintiff claiming a share in the suit properties, stating that the suit properties were joint family properties of the defendants and they had presented O.S.No.52 of 2016 seeking partition and separate possession. On account of the fact that her title was denied, the plaintiff presented O.S.No.90 of 2016 seeking declaration of her title and injunction.

¶21

Pending the suit, she filed an interlocutory application for injunction in I.A.No.314 of 2016. On her side, she marked Exs.P1 to P9 and

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

C.R.P.(PD) No.2597 of 2024

¶25

on the side of the defendants, they marked Exs.R1 to R4.

¶26

The learned Principal District Munsif, Chegam, on the basis of

¶27

Exs.P1 and P2 which stand in the name of the plaintiff and the revenue records which are Exs.P3 to P5, came to a conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of the property and that she satisfied the test of prima facie case. The learned Principal District Munsif, Chengam, also took note of the reply notice dated 02.03.2016 issued by the defendants, denying the title of the plaintiff and claiming a share over the suit properties and found balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff and granted injunction.

¶28

Against this order, C.M.A.No.9 of 2020 was preferred before the learned Sub Judge, Chengam. The learned Sub Judge, Chengam, concurred with the finding of the learned Principal District Munsif, Chengam and dismissed the C.M.A. Against which, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

¶29

Heard Ms.V.Divia Bharathi, learned counsel for the civil revision

¶30

petitioners.

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

C.R.P.(PD) No.2597 of 2024

¶34

7 . Ms.V.Divia Bharathi invited my attention to the plaint in O.S.No.52 of 2016 and submitted that though the property stands in the name of the plaintiff, it is actually purchased from and out of the joint family income, consisting of plaintiff's husband and defendants. She further submitted that there is no question of granting injunction at the instance of an other co-owner's wife. Therefore, she pleaded that order of injunction has to be vacated.

¶35

I have carefully gone through the records and considered the submissions of Ms.V.Divia Bharathi.

¶36

In order to prove her prima facie case, the plaintiff has produced Exs.P1 to P5 and P8 and P9, which pointed out not only her ownership, but, also possession of the property. Therefore, the learned Sub Judge, Chengam, concurred with the decision of the learned trial Judge. The defendants have filed a suit for partition and that is pending. When the title deeds stand in the name of the plaintiff, this prima facie proves that she is

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

C.R.P.(PD) No.2597 of 2024

¶40

the owner of the properties. No evidence has been let in to dispel this. Hence, unless and until the plaintiff's right is protected by way of an injunction, there is every possibility that the defendants might dispossess the plaintiff, who is the widow of their brother. I do not find any reason to take a different opinion from the view taken by the learned Sub Judge and the learned Principal District Munsif.

¶41

Before I conclude, I have to point out that the findings arrived at by the courts below is only for the purpose of disposal of the interlocutory application. It is always open to the defendants to let in evidence before the court that the purchase in the name of the plaintiff was from and out of the funds that has been generated by the joint family. Needless to add that the findings in this revision petition or interlocutory application will not bind the trial Court, at the time of final disposal.

¶42

With the above observation, this civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.

19.07.2024

gya

5/6

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

¶47

C.R.P.(PD) No.2597 of 2024

¶48

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶49

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶50

gya

¶51

To 1.The Sub Judge Chengam 2.The Principal District Munsif Chengam

¶52

C.R.P.(PD) No.2597 of 2024

¶53

19.07.2024

¶54

6/6

¶55

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

A.Chadrasekaran v. K.Deivanayagi Ammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Chadrasekaran v. K.Deivanayagi Ammal

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

Nirmala Vs v.Krishnakumar

Muruganandam Vs Kandasamy

Manohar Babu Vs M/s. Prakruthi Homes

E.Arasu Vs The Principal Registrar

Annamalaithai Vs R. Dheenadayalan

E.Seethalakshmi Vs Meena Rani