Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 10932 Mad
Judgement Date : 23 June, 2022
SA.No.783/2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 23.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
SA.No.783/2005 & CMP.Nos.12152, 12153 & 12154/2016
Kanthamani Ammal .. Appellant /
Plaintiff
Versus
1.Santhanakrishnan
2.Krishnan .. Respondents
/ Defendants
Prayer:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC against the
judgment and decree dated 24.11.2003 made in AS.No.75/2002 passed by
the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu District confirming
the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2002 made in OS.No.399/1986 passed
by the learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu insofar as granting alternative
relief of payment of Rs.15,000/- towards the value of the suit property and
rejecting the claim for mesne profits are concerned.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.No.783/2005
For Appellant : Mr.S.Sathish Rajan
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
(1)The Second Appeal had not been admitted. I really wonder why the
Second Appeal had been filed. The plaintiff is the appellant before this
Court. The plaintiff had filed the suit in OS.No.399/1986 before the
District Munsif Court at Chengalpattu seeking declaration of title and
also for recovery of possession and if recovery of possession is not
granted for mesne profit for use and occupation by the defendants @
Rs.15,000/- p.m.
(2)During trial, the suit was decreed by granting the relief of declaration of
title. The relief of recovery of possession was also granted and also the
plaintiff was given the relief of getting the mesne profits from the
defendants. The plaintiff then filed an appeal and the appeal was
naturally dismissed since there was no cause to file the appeal. The
plaintiff then filed the Second Appeal. Again, it has not been admitted
since there is no case.
(3)The plaintiff should take up steps to file necessary Execution Petition to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA.No.783/2005
put the decree which they have, into effect.
(4)The learned counsel for the appellant states that necessary permission
may be granted to file the Execution Petition. However, there is no point
in granting any permission particularly because the right to file an
Execution Petition is inherent and no permission need be granted. The
appellants to take necessary steps to implead the Legal Representatives in
the Execution Petition, if at all they are advised to do so.
(5)Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. The plaintiff / legal
representatives of the plaintiff may take necessary steps in accordance
with law to put the decree into effect by filing necessary Execution
Petition. No costs.
23.06.2022
AP
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA.No.783/2005
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu District.
2.The District Munsif Chengalpattu.
3.The Section Officer VR Records, High Court Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA.No.783/2005
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
AP
SA.No.783/2005
23.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!