Madras High Court
K.Mathavan Nair vs Francis on 10 June, 2021
S.A.(MD)No.368 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)No.368 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.4848 of 2021
K.Mathavan Nair ... Appellant
versus
Francis ... Respondent
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code,
against the Judgment and Decree dated 17.04.2021 passed in A.S.No.36 of
2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram, confirming the fair and
decreetal order dated 23.07.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.131 of
2018 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
for Mr.D.Nallathambi
JUDGEMENT
The plaintiff is O.S.No.131 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District
Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram, is the appellant in the Second Appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.368 of 2021
2. The suit was filed for restraining the respondent herein from
dispossessing him except by due process of law. In the said suit, the defendant
filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 for rejection of plaint. The said interlocutory application
was allowed. Challenging the rejection of plaint, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.36
of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram. The appeal was
dismissed. Challenging the same, the second appeal has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the
contentions set out in the Memorandum of Grounds and also took me through
the materials enclosed in the typed set of papers.
4. It is seen that the respondent herein had already filed O.S.No.147 of
2011 against the appellant herein for the relief of recovery of possession and he
succeeded before this Court in S.A.(MD)No.32 of 2016. In other words, the
respondent had already obtained a decree for possession. A Special Leave
Petition was filed by the appellant against the Judgment and Decree made in
S.A.(MD)No.32 of 2016 and that was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Thereafter, the respondent had also filed E.P.No.10 of 2019 before the Sub
Court, Padmanabhapuram. In these circumstances, the appellant has no cause
of action to complain that the plaintiff may take recourse to illegal method for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.368 of 2021
dispossessing him. When the respondent is having a decree for recovery of
possession, the respondent has to necessarily work out his remedy before the
Executing Court and the question of illegal dispossession of the appellant will
not arise at all. The apprehension of the appellant appears to be without any
basis. Of course, the learned counsel for the appellant would state that the
appellant was earlier illegally dispossessed and he had to file O.S.No.60 of
1998 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The matter went up to the
Supreme Court and those events had probably given rise to such apprehension
in the mind of the appellant.
5. In view of the subsequent developments, I am of the view that the
appellant need not have any such apprehension.
6. With these observations, the second appeal is dismissed as I do not
find any substantial question of law arising for consideration. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ogy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.368 of 2021
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ogy
Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To:
1. The Sub Court,
Padmanabhapuram.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
S.A.(MD)No.368 of 2021
10.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
