Disposed¶6

S. Kamatchi v. M. Vijaya and 2 others

Madras HC27 Nov 2025OA/887/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; P. Dhanabal J.; O.A. No. 887 of 2024 in C.S. No. 269 of 2024; 27.11.2025; partition suit; ad interim injunction; alienation or encumbrance of suit properties; Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC; Order XIV Rule 8 Original Side Rules; disposal by recording submission of no intention to alienate; applicants S. Kamatchi and Muthukamakshi; respondents M. Vijaya, Srinivasan, Rajeshwari; counsel K. Venkateswaran and V. Balasubramanian.

What did the court decide?

No injunction order was pronounced; the original application was disposed of by recording the submission of learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that the respondents have no intention to alienate or encumber the suit schedule mentioned properties during the pendency of the suit. ¶6

S. Kamatchi Vs M. Vijaya and 2 others — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

O.A No.887 of 2024

¶2

¶3

CS.No.269 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED : 27.11.2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

O.A.No.887 of 2024

CS.No.269 of 2024

S. Kamatchi 2. Muthukamakshi … Applicants/Plaintiffs Versus 1. M. Vijaya 2. Srinivasan 3. Rajeshwari … Respondents/Defendants

¶11

Prayer : Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules, r/w Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, prayed to pass an order of ad interim injunction restraining the Respondents their men, agents, or any person claiming through them from in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit schedule mentioned properties during the pendency of the suit.

¶12

Page No.1 of 5

¶13

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

¶14

O.A No.887 of 2024

¶15

in CS.No.269 of 2024

¶16

For Applicant(s) For Respondent(s)

¶17

: Mr. K. Venkateswaran

¶18

: Mr. V. Balasubramanian (for R1 and R2)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This original application has been filed by the applicants/plaintiffs

¶21

seeking an order of ad interim injunction restraining the

¶22

respondents/defendants, their men, agents or any person claiming through

¶23

them from in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit schedule mentioned properties during the pendency of the suit.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants/plaintiffs

¶25

submits that the applicants/plaintiffs have filed the main suit for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. It is further submitted that

¶26

during the pendency of the suit, the respondents/defendants making attempts

¶27

to alienate the suit properties. Therefore, the present application has been

¶28

Page No.2 of 5

¶29

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

¶30

O.A No.887 of 2024

¶31

in CS.No.269 of 2024

¶32

filed before this Court.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2

¶34

submits that the respondents have no intention to alienate the subject properties during the pendency of the suit. Hence, according to them, the

¶35

original application is unnecessary one.

¶36

Heard both sides.

¶37

Since the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2

¶38

has stated that the respondents have no intention to alienate or encumbering

¶39

the suit schedule mentioned properties during the pendency of the suit, this original application deserves to be disposed of, by recording his submission.

¶40