Second appeal over a bare-injunction decree on family property. The High Court found the property belonged to Natchiarammal, making the first defendant a co-owner; since injunction against a co-owner is not maintainable, it set aside both decrees and dismissed the suit.
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.
S.A.(MD) No.879 of 2008
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.07.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
S.A. (MD) No.879 of 2008
Kaliammal ... Appellant -vs1.Thangaraj 2.Veeriah 3.Mariappan 4.Amutha ... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 24.01.2008, passed in A.S.No.27 of 2006 on the file of Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 19.01.2006, passed in O.S.No.133 of 2002 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputhur.
_____________ Page 1 of 9_
S.A.(MD) No.879 of 2008
For Appellant : Mr.V.Shathurthi Raja, for Mr.S.Kadarkarai.
For Respondent 1 : Mr.M.Ashok Kumar
For Respondents 2 to 4 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The first defendant in the suit is the appellant. The first respondent herein filed a suit for bare injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the first appeal filed by the first defendant was dismissed. Challenging the concurrent findings, the first defendant is before this Court.
_____________ Page 2 of 9_
S.A.(MD) No.879 of 2008
adopted by the defendants 3,4 and 5. It was the case of the defendants that the plaintiff's grandfather - Pethaiyar Thevar had one son and two daughters and the first defendant was one of the daughters of Pethaiyar Thevar. The plaintiff's father was none other than the brother of the first defendant. It was also claimed that the suit property was purchased by the mother of the first defendant and wife of Pethaiyar Thevar, namely, Natchiarammal under a sale deed, dated 23.12.1959. The suit property, after purchase, had been in possession and enjoyment of the family, including the first defendant and the plaintiff's father. The original owner – Natchiarammal mortgaged the suit property with one Lakshmiammal for a sum of Rs.400/- and the same was redeemed by the first defendant by spending her own funds. It was also claimed that the father of the plaintiff died at a young age, leaving minor plaintiff and he was brought up by the first defendant only. It was further claimed by the defendant that Natchiarammal executed a settlement deed, dated 22.04.1993, settling certain properties in favour of the first defendant. The suit property was orally gifted in favour of the first defendant and as such the first defendant had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. On these pleadings, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.
Page 3 of 9
S.A.(MD) No.879 of 2008
one of his paternal aunts, namely, the sister of first defendant was examined as P.W.2. On the side of the plaintiff, 4 documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-4. The first defendant was examined as D.W.1 and yet another witness was examined as D.W.2. 6 documents were marked on the side of the defendants as Exs.B-1 to B-6.
_____________ Page 4 of 9_
S.A.(MD) No.879 of 2008
Whether the Courts below are justified in granting a decree
for injunction against the first defendant, who is entitled to be treated as a co-owner of the property, after the death of original owner Natchiarammal ?
_____________ Page 5 of 9_
S.A.(MD) No.879 of 2008
therefore, the defendant is not entitled to disturb the physical possession of the plaintiff, except by due process of law.
Page 6 of 9
S.A.(MD) No.879 of 2008
_____________ Page 7 of 9_
S.A.(MD) No.879 of 2008
the decrees passed by the Courts below. The suit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that it is always open for the parties to work out their remedy in a suit for partition. No costs.
05.07.2024
NCC : Yes Index : Yes Internet : Yes
dixit
To:
3.Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
Page 8 of 9
S.A.(MD) No.879 of 2008
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dixit
S.A.(MD) No.879 of 2008
05.07.2024
_____________ Page 9 of 9_
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a decree for injunction could be granted against the first defendant, who is entitled to be treated as a co-owner after the death of Natchiarammal?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kaliammal
Thangaraj
Veeriah
Mariappan
Amutha
S.Sounthar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
