Sulochana Vs Manicka Mudaliar — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sulochana Vs Manicka Mudaliar — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; second appeal dismissed, all admitted questions answered against the appellant/first defendant, upholding the decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Appellant expressly left free to work out her remedies under the decree in O.S.No.483 of 1988 read with Ex.B2/sale deed notwithstanding the findings recorded. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether a suit for injunction is maintainable as against a co-owner of the property. +3 more

Court's answer

The concurrent factual findings of the courts below, which counsel failed to dislodge, stand; therefore the first defendant's claim as a co-owner does not arise.

Ratio / Principle

None of the substantial questions of law on which the second appeal was admitted in fact raises any question of law, much less a substantial question of law.

Key takeaways

The property covered by the first defendant's decree in O.S.No.482 of 1988 lies on the eastern side of Kookulam Colony Road, whereas the suit property in the present suit lies on the western side of that road; consequently she cannot claim ownership as a co-owner of the suit scheduled property.ratio¶54
Since O.S.No.497 of 1993 was finally dismissed and the dismissal confirmed by the appellate court, any reliance on that suit is of no avail.ratio¶57
The courts below rightly found that O.S.No.873 of 1996 was filed only against the first defendant, while the present suit was filed against her and other defendants on a changed situation and a new/subsequent cause of action; the earlier uncontested and withdrawn suit therefore does not operate as res judicata within the meaning of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (SA No. 582 of 2007; Mummeneni Sudheer Kumar J.; decision dated 13-02-2026): second appeal by the first defendant dismissed. The courts below had concurrently found that the 10 cents claimed by the defendant under her specific-performance decree (suit of 1988; Ex.B2) lie on the eastern side of Kookulam Colony Road while the suit property (Dry RS.No.14/3 and Dry RS.No.14/4, 0.22 and 0.21 cents) lies on its western side, and that the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment were evidenced by electricity bills (Ex.A6) and licence-fee receipts (Ex.A7); these findings went undisplaced. All four substantial questions of law framed at admission (order dated 21.09.2022) — maintainability of an injunction suit against a co-owner; the courts' observation directing the appellant to work out her rights through a partition remedy; the effect of the decrees in O.S.No.497 of 1993 and O.S.No.482/88 as possible res judicata; and the bearing of the withdrawn earlier suit O.S.No.873 of 1996 (Order 23 CPC) — were held to raise no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, and were answered against the appellant. Withdrawal of the earlier uncontested suit, filed against the first defendant alone, was held not to operate as res judicata within the meaning of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the present suit resting on a subsequent cause of action. Dismissal without prejudice: the appellant remains free to work out her remedies under her 1988 decree read with Ex.B2 sale deed notwithstanding these findings.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree in A.S.No.12 of 2005 confirming the decree in O.S.No.774 of 1997 (suit for permanent injunction), challenged in this second appeal by the appellant/first defendant.¶21
Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi · 28.02.2006
Prior proceeding
Trial suit O.S.No.774 of 1997 (II Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi) decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 18.11.2004; decree confirmed in A.S.No.12 of 2005.¶21
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff claims purchase of the suit property under registered sale deed dated 03.07.1991 (Ex.A2) from 15 persons, family members/legal heirs of Periyan, Krishnan & Sanyasi.¶29
Prior proceeding
First defendant filed O.S.No.497 of 1993 (Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi) seeking injunction against the plaintiff and obtained a temporary injunction.¶32
Prior proceeding
Temporary injunction set aside at plaintiff's instance in C.M.A.No.54 of 1996; defendant's CRP No.2383 of 1997 before this court yielded injunction in C.M.P.No.12149 of 1997; O.S.No.497 of 1993 finally dismissed by decree dated 26.06.2001 and confirmed in A.S.No.76 of 2001 dated 26.02.2004.¶32
Prior proceeding
First defendant, claiming purchase of 10 cents out of 66 cents (RS.No.14/3, 14/4A, 14/4B) under agreement of sale dated 21.02.1988 from Mannangatti S/o Sanyasi for Rs.2,000/-, filed a specific-performance suit (printed variously as O.S.No.48 of 1988/O.S.No.482 of 1988) which was decreed on 21.09.1993.¶36
Prior proceeding
In execution of that decree, E.P.No.184 of 1996 (sale deed) and E.P.No.134 of 1997 (delivery of possession) were allowed; defendant claims to have been put in possession of 10 cents of undivided share out of 66 cents.¶37
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff's earlier suit O.S.No.873 of 1996, filed against the first defendant alone, was not contested on merits and was admittedly withdrawn for filing the present suit (framed as an Order 23 CPC objection).¶58
Prior proceeding
R5 to R7 brought on record as LRs of deceased first respondent vide order dated 26.04.2019.¶17
Prior proceeding
Second appeal admitted on four stated substantial questions of law by order dated 21.09.2022.¶44