P.Thangavel Vs R.Sivakumar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

P.Thangavel Vs R.Sivakumar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition disposed of with a direction that the issue of possession be decided by the trial Court after the parties lead oral and documentary evidence and advance arguments, and that the trial Court dispose of the suit within three months from receipt of a copy of the order; clarified on 31-07-2025 that the factum of possession was not considered by this Court and the trial Court shall decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the revision petitioner (plaintiff) was entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property pending disposal of the suit. +1 more

Court's answer

With the above direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of; no costs.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the facts that the trial has commenced, the interlocutory application was disposed of in 2022 and the petitioner's possession has not been disturbed, the issue of possession shall be decided by the trial Court after the parties lead oral and documentary evidence and advance arguments.

Key takeaways

The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶40
By subsequent order dated 31-07-2025 (matter listed 'For being mentioned' at the instance of counsel for respondents/defendants), it is made clear that the factum of possession has not been considered by this Court.ratio¶64
The trial Court shall decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law; except this clarification, all other aspects of the order dated 10-07-2025 shall remain intact.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P.B. Balaji, J.) disposed of CRP No.3347 of 2023 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by P.Thangavel, plaintiff in O.S.No.124 of 2020 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Attur, challenging the Fair and Decreetal order dated 12.04.2022 in I.A.No.2 of 2020, whereby the trial Court declined interim injunction against the defendants (R.Sivakumar and Thilaga) and directed that the issue of possession be decided after trial. The petitioner claimed under a registered will dated 13.05.1994 while the defendants claimed under an unregistered will dated 25.12.1992; the Court observed that the truth and genuineness of the wills could be decided only upon oral and documentary evidence. Noting that the trial had already commenced, the interlocutory application stood disposed of in 2022, and the petitioner's possession had admittedly not been disturbed, the Court held that the issue of possession shall be decided by the trial Court after the parties lead oral and documentary evidence and advance arguments, and directed disposal of the suit within three months. By a subsequent order dated 31-07-2025, passed when the matter was listed 'For being mentioned', the Court clarified that the factum of possession had not been considered by it and that the trial Court shall decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law, all other aspects remaining intact.

CRP No. 3347 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-07-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

CRP No. 3347 of 2023

P.Thangavel S/o Ponnusamy, Door No 275, Merku Kattukottai, Kandasamy Pudur Village, Arasanatham Post, Attur Taluk, Salem District 636 107.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

R.Sivakumar S/o Late Rajadurai, Gandhipadayachi Thottam, Kandasamy Pudur Village, Arasanatham Post, Attur Taluk, Salem District 636 107.

2.Thilaga W/o Late R.Sakthivel, Res at Thandanoorar Thottam, Kandasamy Pudur West, Arasanatham Post, Attur Taluk, Salem District 636 107.

Respondent(s)

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

CRP No. 3347 of 2023

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 12.04.2022 made in IA No.2 of 2020 in OS No.124 of 2020 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Attur, by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Sathish Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Rajakumar For R1 R-2- No appearance

ORDER

The plaintiff was unsuccessful in obtaining an interim order in I.A.No.2

of 2020 is the revision petitioner. Though the interim injunction was sought for

to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, the trial Court without passing any order, directed the parties to lead evidence holding that the issue of possession would be decided after trial, at the time of delivering the judgment. As against the same, the

plaintiff has come up by way of this revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for

the first respondent.

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

CRP No. 3347 of 2023

The petitioner claims under the registered will dated 13.05.1994,

whereas the defendants are claiming an unregistered will dated 25.12.1992. As

the issue regarding the truth and genuineness of the said wills can be decided

only upon parties leading the oral and documentary evidence, in support of their respective contentions, insofar as the interim application, pending suit, the petitioner wanted to protect his possession.

As rightly contented by the learned counsel for the

respondents/defendants, the trial has already commenced in the suit and further

the Interlocutory Application has been disposed of in the year 2022 and till date

there is no disturbance and the suit may be expeditiously disposed of.

Admittedly the petitioner's possession has not been disturbed and the trial has already commenced in the suit.

In view of the above, the issue of possession shall be decided by the

trial Court, after the parties lead oral and documentary evidence and also

advance arguments. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit, within a

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

CRP No. 3347 of 2023

period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above direction, this revision petition is disposed of. No costs.

10-07-2025

jd

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

To

The Subordinate Judge, Attur.

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

CRP No. 3347 of 2023

P.B.BALAJI J.

jd

CRP No. 3347 of 2023

10.07.2025

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

CRP No. 3347 of 2023

CRP No.3347 of 2023

P.B. BALAJI,J.

Today, this matter is listed under the caption “For being mentioned” at

the instance of the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.

The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that the

defendants are not admitted the factum of plaintiff's possession. He contends

that, his arguments was, even according to the revision petitioner, his possession

has not been disturbed. Since the trial has been commenced, a suitable direction

may be issued to the trial Court.

Therefore, it is made clear that the factum of possession has not been

considered by this Court. The trial Court shall decide the matter on merits and in

accordance with law. Except the same, all other aspects shall remain intact.

31-07-2025

Jd

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

CRP No. 3347 of 2023

P.B.BALAJI J.

jd

CRP No.3347 of 2023

31-07-2025

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