Dismissed¶59

Mr. S. Haribabu v. Mrs. Subba Rathnam Ammal and 3 others

Madras HC19 Feb 2026OA/615/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC; OA 615 & 616 of 2025 in CS 134/2025; P. Dhanabal J.; 19-02-2026; partition suit; heirs of Late B. Sankaran Naidu (died intestate 14.10.2008); family property dispute; temporary injunction against alienation/encumbrance dismissed — no prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss; Advocate Receiver for rent/tenant-details collection refused — no grounds under Order XL CPC; Settlement Deed 18.02.2016 (1/3 to Plaintiff, 2/3 to 2nd defendant) contended not acted upon — matter for trial; Sowcarpet 'A' Schedule monthly rents and advances; Arakkonam 'B' and 'C' Schedule properties; Order XIV Rule 8 Madras High Court Original Side Rules; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; Order XL Rule 1 CPC.

What did the court decide?

None; both Original Applications were dismissed. ¶59

Mr. S. Haribabu Vs Mrs. Subba Rathnam Ammal and 3 others — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; both Original Applications were dismissed.

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether a temporary injunction should issue restraining the respondents/defendants from selling, mortgaging or otherwise creating encumbrances over the 'A', 'B' and 'C' Schedule properties till disposal of the suit (OA No. 615 of 2025, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC). +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

Since the 'A' Schedule property stands in the name of the 1st respondent, whether the purchase amount was contributed by the applicant/Plaintiff or his father must be tested through trial; respondents having denied the contributions, no prima facie entitlement could be assumed for interim relief.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

An Advocate Receiver cannot be appointed at this stage unless grounds exist attracting Order XL CPC; no such grounds exist here, and whether rents are being withheld is a matter for trial.

¶53

Key takeaways

The plaint itself already prays that the 2nd defendant furnish details of rental collections and rental advances for the Plaintiff's 1/3 share; hence the prayer for appointing an Advocate Receiver cannot be considered now and it is not appropriate to appoint one.ratio¶53
The respondents deny the Settlement Deed dated 18.02.2016 and contend it was not acted upon; the court held that the status of the Settlement Deed is a matter for trial.ratio¶53
Temporary injunction refused: the applicant failed to establish that the respondents are attempting to alienate the properties; no prima facie case was made out, the balance of convenience does not lie in the applicant's favour, and no irreparable loss would ensue if injunction is withheld.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (P. Dhanabal J.), dated 19-02-2026, dismissing OA Nos. 615 and 616 of 2025 in CS No. 134 of 2025, an inter-se partition dispute among the heirs of Late B. Sankaran Naidu. (i) Temporary injunction restraining sale, mortgage or other encumbrance of the 'A', 'B' and 'C' Schedule properties was refused: the court found no prima facie material of attempted alienation, balance of convenience against the applicant-Plaintiff, and no irreparable loss; the questions of the applicant's alleged monetary contribution to the 'A' Schedule purchase and of the Settlement Deed dated 18.02.2016 (which the respondents contend was never acted upon) were expressly left to trial. (ii) Appointment of an Advocate Receiver to gather tenant particulars and collect rents, advances, premium and maintenance charges from the 'A' Schedule (Sowcarpet) property was likewise refused: no grounds attracting Order XL CPC were shown, and the plaint already prays for rental-account relief in respect of the Plaintiff's 1/3 share. The court observed that any future alienation would stand subject to the outcome of the suit.

¶1

OA Nos. 615 and 616 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL OA No. 615 of 2025 and OA No. 616 OF 2025 in CS NO. 134 OF 2025

¶6

Mr. S. Haribabu S/o.Late. B.Sankaran Naidu, No.4/B, 3rd Street, Gandhi Nagar, Keelkattalai, Old Pallavaram, Chennai-600117

¶7

..Applicant(s) common in both Original Applications

¶8

¶9

Mrs. Subba Rathnam Ammal and 3 others W/o.Late. B.Sankaran Naidu, 4/9, Anna Street, Ethiraj Nagar, West Mambalam, Chennai-600033. ALSO AT No.26/50, Nammalwar Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600079

¶10

Mr.Prabhu Raj S/o.Late. B.Sankaran Naidu, 4/9, Anna Street, Ethiraj Nagar, West Mambalam, Chennai-600033. ALSO AT No.26/50, Nammalwar Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600079

¶11

S.Hema Kumar S/o.Late.B.Sankaran Naidu, Tummikapalli gate( Near Vagdevi College) Tummikapalli Village, Kotha Valasa Monpalam, Vijaya Nagarm D.T., Andhra Pradesh-535183

¶12

Ms.S.Nirmala Devi D/o.Late.B.Sankaran Naidu,

¶13

__________ Page1 of 10

¶14

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

¶15

OA Nos. 615 and 616 of 2025

¶16

Old.No.81, West Jones Road, West Saidapet, Chennai-600015

¶17

..Respondent(s) common in both Original Applications

¶18

PRAYER in OA No. 615 of 2025:

¶19

The Original Application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure praying to pass an order to grant an order of Temporary Injunction restraining the Respondents/Defendants or their men, agents or any other persons claiming through them either to sell, mortgage, create any nature of Encumbrances in respect of all the properties more fully described in the Schedule A, B and C as detailed herewith till the disposal of the above Civil Suit.

¶20

PRAYER in OA No. 616 of 2025:

¶21

The Original Application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules read with Order XL Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure praying to pass an order to appoint an Advocate receive to collect the details of all the tenants respectively occupying their tenancy portions more fully described in the A Schedule mentioned property and also to collect the Rental advances, Premium, Maintenance charges and monthly rents payable by them in respect of the tenancy premises occupied by them in the A schedule property more fully described in the Judges Summon with effect from December 2024 and to deposit the same before this Hon’ble Court to the credit of the above civil suit accounts and to render proper accounts till the disposal of the above civil suit.

¶22

For Applicant(s): M/S.N. Premkumar For Respondent(s): Mr. N. Siva Prakash

¶23

__________ Page2 of 10

¶24

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

¶25

OA Nos. 615 and 616 of 2025

¶26

COMMON ORDER

¶27

The Original Application in 615 of 2025 has been filed to grant an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from creating encumbrance in respect of the properties in ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedules. The Original Application in 616 of 2025 has been filed seeking for appointment of an Advocate receiver to collect the details of all the tenants occupying their tenancy portions in ‘A’ Schedule property and also to collect the rental advances, premium, maintenance charges and monthly rents payable by them in respect of the tenancy premises occupied by them in the ‘A’ Schedule property.

¶28

According to the applicant, he is the Plaintiff in the main Suit filed for the reliefs of partition and for permanent injunction and to furnish details of the rental collections and rental advances. Originally, the Suit properties belonged to the father of the applicant namely B.Sankaran Naidu, who died intestate on 14.10.2008 leaving behind the applicant and the respondents as his legal heirs to succeed his estate and the applicant and the respondents are equally entitled to share the ‘A’ schedule property. The Suit properties are the buildings and vacant land. The father of the applicant constructed a multi-storied building consisting of ground plus four floors and the lands were purchased in the name of the mother of the applicant and his mother has no income source and the applicant, being the earning member of the family, had contributed his monthly

¶29

Page3 of 10

¶30

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

¶31

OA Nos. 615 and 616 of 2025

¶32

salary of Rs.2 lakhs and stood as a co-borrower along with his father to help him to construct the said building. He also mortgaged 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments, thereby he also contributed money for the construction of the building. While so, in the month of February, 2024, he came to know that 1^st respondent had executed a Settlement Deed dated 18.02.2016 settling 1/3 share

¶33

portion of the property to the applicant and 2/3 portion of the land to the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent does not have any source of income and he is alone enjoying the entirety of the monthly rents derived from the ‘A’ schedule property. He is always in constructive and joint possession of the Suit properties. When the applicant demanded for partition, the respondents denied for the same. Therefore, he filed the main Suit. The ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties are situated at Arakkonam and the petitioner is also having share over the said properties. The respondents are attempting to create encumbrances over the properties in favour of third parties. The 2^nd defendant has been collecting rents from all the tenants, who are respectively occupying the prime ‘A’ schedule property at Sowcarpet and he is only enjoying the monthly rents collected from the ‘A’ schedule property without sharing the rental income with the applicant / Plaintiff. Therefore, the applicant has filed this application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to collect the rents and to grant an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from creating encumbrance over the properties.

¶34

__________ Page4 of 10

¶35

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

¶36

OA Nos. 615 and 616 of 2025

¶37

The respondents filed a counter stating that the respondents denied all

¶38

the allegations made in the affidavit, except those that are specifically admitted herein. The properties situated in Nammalwarpet Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai is exclusively purchased by the mother of the applicant and the respondents 2 to 4 by selling her jewels. The applicant / Plaintiff never contributed any money to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs and he never contributed any pie to meet out the expenses as stated in the affidavit. After the twin daughters born to the applicant / Plaintiff, he got separated from the joint family and he has been living along with his wife and children separately and he never cared about the joint family. In fact, the 1^st respondent / defendant expressed his desire to give a share to the Plaintiff in respect of ‘A’ schedule property, which was accepted by the 2^nd defendant without any objection. The 1^st respondent / defendant before executing the Settlement Deed dated 18.02.2016 called upon the Plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 4 to her house and after mutual discussion, executed the Settlement Deed dated 18.02.2016 in favour of the applicant / Plaintiff and the 2^nd respondent / defendant. The 2^nd respondent / defendant was taking care of the 1^st respondent / defendant as well as the properties of Late B. Sankaran Naidu i.e., Suit C Schedule property and the property of the 1^st respondent / defendant viz., Suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties. The 1^st respondent / defendant executed the Settlement Deed settling 1/3 share in favour of the applicant / Plaintiff and 2/3 share share in favour of the 2^nd respondent / defendant in the Suit ‘A’ Schedule property. After execution of Settlement Deed, the applicant /

¶39

Page5 of 10

¶40

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

¶41

OA Nos. 615 and 616 of 2025

¶42

Plaintiff did not show any care, love and affection to the defendants. The applicant / Plaintiff at any point of time acted upon the Settlement Deed executed in his favour and never exercised any right as the owner of the property settled in his favour.

¶43

3.1. Out of motherly love and affection, when the 1^st respondent / defendant came to see the Plaintiff at his house, at that time, the Plaintiff cunningly got the jewels weighing about 50 sovereigns belonging to the 1^st respondent / defendant, thereby, she could not stay in the house of the applicant / Plaintiff. The applicant / Plaintiff issued a Legal Notice dated 12.03.2024 and the same was suitably replied through a reply notice dated 17.04.2024. The ‘B’ Schedule property is the separate property of the 1^st respondent / defendant. The applicant / Plaintiff and the other respondents / defendants have no right over the said ‘B’ schedule property. In respect of ‘C’ Schedule property, the defendants have no objection for 1/5 share. The 1^st respondent / defendant is collecting rent in respect of ‘A’ Schedule property. Therefore, there is no need of appointment of an Advocate receiver to collect the details of tenants and rental advance and other maintenance charges. The said Settlement Deed has not been acted upon, thereby the Suit itself is not maintainable. Therefore, the applications are liable to be dismissed.

¶44

This Court heard both sides and perused the entire materials.

¶45

Page6 of 10

¶46

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

¶47

OA Nos. 615 and 616 of 2025

¶48

In this case, the applicant being the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for the reliefs of partition and separate possession, permanent injunction, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and to direct the 2^nd defendant to furnish the details of rental collections as well as rental advances collected by him from ‘A’ Schedule property and to pay 1/3 share to the Plaintiff accordingly. The applicant has filed these applications for grant of interim injunction not to create any encumbrance over the properties and the appointment of an Advocate receiver to collect rents from the properties. The respondents are none other than the own mother, brother and sisters of the applicant / Plaintiff. There is a family dispute between the parties in respect of the properties.

¶49

According to the applicant, the ‘A’ Schedule property was purchased by his father in the name of the 1^st respondent / defendant, but the amount was contributed by the applicant and his father, thereby, the applicant is entitled to the share over the property. But the respondents denied the contributions made by the applicant for the purchase of ‘A’ Schedule property. Since the property stands in the name of the 1^st respondent, whether the amount was contributed by the applicant / Plaintiff or his father, has to be tested through trial. It is also the contention of the applicant that the 1^st respondent / defendant executed a Settlement Deed in favour of the applicant in respect of 1/3 share and the 2^nd respondent / defendant in respect of 2/3 shares. While so, he filed the application for appointment of an Advocate receiver for collection of rent in

¶50

Page7 of 10

¶51

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

¶52

OA Nos. 615 and 616 of 2025

¶53

respect of his share and the respondents have denied the Settlement Deed and according to them, the Settlement Deed has not been acted upon and therefore, it is a matter of trial. At this stage, the Advocate Receiver cannot be appointed unless there are grounds to attract provisions of Order XL of code of Civil Procedure. There are no grounds to appoint an Advocate receiver and it is the matter of trial. Moreover, the Plaint itself contains the prayer to direct the 2^nd defendant to furnish the details of rental collections as well as rental advances collected by him in the ‘A’ Schedule property, in respect of 1/3 share to the Plaintiff. While so, the prayer for appointment of Advocate receiver cannot be considered at this stage. Therefore, it is not appropriate to appoint an Advocate receiver.

¶54

As far as the prayer in respect of not to create any encumbrance or alienation is concerned, the ‘A’ Schedule property belongs to the 1^st respondent / defendant and she settled the said property in favour of the applicant / Plaintiff in respect of 1/3 share and 2/3 share to the 2^nd respondent / defendant. It is not possible to create encumbrance in respect of the share of the applicant and if any alienation is made, it is subject to the outcome of the result of the Suit. As far as ‘B’ Schedule property is concerned, according to the respondents, it is exclusively belongs to the 1^st respondent / defendant, while so it is matter of trial. As far as ‘C’ Schedule property is concerned, the defendants have no objection to grant partition. The applicant has not

¶55

Page8 of 10

¶56

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

¶57

OA Nos. 615 and 616 of 2025

¶58

established that the respondents / defendants are making attempts to alienate the properties. There are no prima facie material to show that the respondents are making attempts to alienate the properties and no prima facie case is made out and the balance of convenience is also not lying in favour of the applicant / Plaintiff and no irreparable loss would be caused to the applicant, if injunction is not granted. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that these applications have no merits and deserve to be dismissed.

¶59