Madras High Court
Dr. P.Ramesh Rao vs Shareen Premanayagam on 14 December, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.S.No.323 of 2021
Dr. P.Ramesh Rao,
So.Late Dr.P.Sripathi Rao,
Rep. by its Power Agent adjudicated
Vide Doc No.:ADJ/155/2021
Executed on 20.10.2021, SRO Puraisawalkam,
Mrs.Shobha Hebbar,
92, Dr.Alagappa Road, Flowers Road,
Chennai 600 084 ... Plaintiff
Vs
1. Shareen Premanayagam
2. Premanayagam ...Defendants
Plaint under Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. read with Order IV Rule 1 of
Original Side Rules to grant permanent injunction restraining Defendants,
their men, agents, servants or anyone acting or claiming under or on behalf
of Defendants in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs rightful and the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
For Plaintiff : M/s.Aiyar and Dolia
For Defendants : Mr.K.Prem Kumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
JUDGMENT
This suit has been filed seeking the following reliefs;
(a) to grant permanent injunction restraining defendants, their
men, agents, servants or anyone acting or claiming under or on behalf of
Defendants in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's rightful and
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
2. Written statement has been filed by the defendants. Learned
counsel for the defendants, on instructions, submits that the defendants do
not have the intention of interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff drew the attention of this
Court to paragraph Nos.3 and 7 of the written statement filed by the
defendants and he would be satisfied, if the statements made in those
paragraphs are recorded by this Court and decree passed in terms thereof.
He would also submit that with regard to the other allegations made by the
defendants against the plaintiff in their written statement, the same is denied.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
After recording the statements made by the respective counsels, the
following statements made by the defendants in paragraph Nos.3 and 7 of
the written statement are extracted hereunder.
“3. The 1st defendant states that herself and the 2nd
defendant do want to deal with the false and incorrect
allegations and averments contained in the plaint in C.S.
No.323 of 2021, because the defendants never interfered
with the plaintiff's or anyone else's possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The 1st
defendant state that the 2nd defendant herein is her
husband and the 2nd defendant has nothing to do with the
suit property or with the family of Mrs.Malathi Sripathi
Rao and simply because the 2nd defendant is the husband
of the 1st defendant, he is arraigned as one of the party to
the above frivolous and vexatious suit filed by the
Plaintiff. Moreover the Power Agent has made several
false allegations and averments against the defendants
herein without any personal knowledge about the causes
of action pleaded in the plaint and on this reason alone,
the above suit itself is liable to the dismissed in limini with
exemplary costs. Further the defendants feel that the
present suit is unnecessary and unwarranted litigation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and invented with oblique motive just to threaten the
defendants from taking legal steps to probate the WILL
dt.29.07.2021 executed by Mrs.Malathi Sripathi
Rao(Late) and fulfill her Last Wishes.
7. The defendants reiterate that they never interfered with
the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment over the suit
property or anyone's rights over the same. The 1st
defendant states that it is her duty to fulfil the last wishes
of her friend, Mrs.Malathi Sripathi Rao and her husband
is a total stranger to the family of the deceased.
Therefore, the above suit was laid based on mere
assumptions and presumptions without any cause of
action and for the sake of a suit, the above vexatious and
malicious suit has been filed before this Hon'ble Court,
just to divert the attention of the disputes brewing between
the plaintiff and sons of his younger brother, P.Suresh
Rao. In fact, she reliably understand that the grandsons
of the deceased, Mrs.Malathi Sripathi Rao (viz., the
children of pre-deceased son, P.Suresh Rao) have already
initiated legal steps to claim their rights over the suit
property and other properties left by Mrs.Malathi Sripathi
Rao and filed a partition suit before this Hon'ble Court.
Further there are several whatsapp messages exchanged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
between the 1st defendant and Mrs.Sandhya, wife of the
plaintiff herein during the life time of the said
Mrs.Malathy Sripathi Rao, which will throw the light, who
is the greedy person and how the plaintiff and his wife
treated the deceased Mrs.Malathi Sripathi Rao during her
life time and whether they have extended their love and
affection etc., the 1st defendant will produce those
records and other records in the Probate proceedings to
show that the plaintiff and his wife are only interested in
the properties of the deceased and they never extended
their true love, affection, care and compassion to the
deceased Mrs.Malathi Sripathi Rao.
4. Since the defendants have expressly pleaded in their written
statement that they do not have any intention to interfere with the plaintiff's
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, this Court
has to necessarily decree the suit as prayed for in C.S. No.323 of 2021,
based on the admission made by the defendants in their written statement.
5. In terms of the aforementioned admissions made by the
defendants in paragraph Nos. 3 and 7 of the written statement, the suit is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
decreed as prayed for in C.S.No.323 of 2021. However, there shall no order
as to costs.
14.12.2021
srn/ab
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ABDUL QUDDHOSE.J
ab/srn
C.S.No.323 of 2021
14.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
