Madras High Court
G.Sujatha vs S.Thangam ...Plaintiff/ on 22 October, 2021
S.A(MD)No.1326 of 2006
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.10.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A(MD)No.1326 of 2006
1.G.Sujatha
2.O.S.D.Silus
3.P.D.S.Mani
4.C.C.John Nicksan Jastas,
5.Rajamani
6.Murugesan
7.Nobel Raj
8.Thangiyan
9.Pandian
10.Rajan
11.Thamsan
12.N.Iyyapan
13.Manikandan
14.Thangam
15.Palraj
16.Viyen ... Defendants/Appellants/Appellants
Vs.
S.Thangam ...Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
S.A(MD)No.1326 of 2006
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil
Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated
04.07.2006 made in A.S.No.149 of 2005 on the file of the
Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District,
which is confirmed in judgment and decree dated 22.09.2005 in
O.S.No.278 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Munisf
Court, Padmanabhapuram.
For Appellants : Mr.T.Selvakumaran
For Respondent : Mr.C.Godwin
JUDGMENT
The defendants in O.S No.278 of 2002 on the file of the
Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram are the
appellants in this second appeal. The respondent herein,
namely, Mr.S.Thangam filed the said suit seeking the reliefs of
mandatory injunction and permanent injunction and also
payment of compensation. The subject matter of the suit
pertained to pathway rights. The case of the plaintiff was that
the villagers do not have any right to go across the suit property.
The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.A1 to
A13. On the side of the defendants, five witnesses were
examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked. Advocate
Commissioner was appointed and his report and plan were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.1326 of 2006
marked as Court Exs.1 and 2. By judgment and decree dated
22.09.2005, the trial court apart from granting the relief of
permanent injunction and mandatory injunction also awarded
Rs.15,000/- as damages. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants
filed A.S No.149 of 2005 before the Sub Court,
Padmanabhapuram. The appeal was dismissed on 04.07.2006.
Aggrieved by the same, this second appeal came to be filed.
2.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
he does not have any instruction. Therefore, the respondent was
set exparte. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants
brought it to the court's notice that the plaintiff is no longer
having any interest in the matter, because, he has already
executed a gift deed dated 22.01.2014 in favour of the
Government of Tamil Nadu donating the suit property. Now, the
property has been taken over by the panchayat and a road has
also been laid. He has also enclosed photographs in this
regard. The counsel for the appellants also stated that the
appellants have no objection for the plaintiffs to withdraw the
amount that has been deposited to the credit of the suit in terms
of the interim order granted by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.1326 of 2006
3.In view of the subsequent developments and the stand
taken by the counsel for the appellants, the impugned
judgments and decrees are set aside and the second appeal is
disposed of accordingly. No costs.
22.10.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
skm
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 Subordinate Court,
Padmanabhapuram.
2.The Additional District Munsif Court,
Padmanabhapuram.
3.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.1326 of 2006
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
skm
S.A(MD)No.1326 of 2006
22.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
