R.Ranjithavalli vs S.Muthulakshmi
2023 Latest Caselaw 16152 Mad

Madras High Court

R.Ranjithavalli vs S.Muthulakshmi on 11 December, 2023

Author: N.Seshasayee

Bench: N.Seshasayee

                                                                                  C.M.A.No.341 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 11.12.2023

                                                         CORAM:

                                          MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

                                               C.M.A.No.341 of 2022
                                             and C.M.P.No.2346 of 2022

                     R.Ranjithavalli                                              ... Appellant

                                                          Vs.

                     1.S.Muthulakshmi
                     2.S.Rajendran                                                ... Respondents


                     PRAYER:This Appeal is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated
                     08.10.2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.386 of 2021 by the
                     learned II Additional District Judge, Tiruppur.


                                         For appellant    :     Ms.D.Chitra Maragatham

                                         For respondents :      Mr.Balaji Thirumoorthy



                                                    JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S.No.386 of 2021, on the file of II Additional District

Court, Tiruppur is the appellant herein. She preferred this appeal

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

challenging an order dismissing her application in I.A.No.1 of 2021, which

she has laid for an order of interim injunction, seeking to restrain the

defendants from alienating the property and also to reserve the status quo

vis-a-vis the physical features of the suit property. This came to be

dismissed by the trial Court. The trial Court has held that if the respondents

1 and 2 are putting up any construction in the property, they are doing so at

their own risk and dismissed.

2.Heard both sides.

3.What is not in dispute is that the respondents 1 and 2 herein want a piece

of property and the plaintiff herein had purchased certain undivided share of

the said property from them vide sale deed dated 19.12.2005. It is for

partitioning the property that she had purchased, she had laid a present suit.

4.This Court is informed that the trial Court has not appointed any

Commissioner to visit the property. If the defendants are putting up

construction in a property which they had already sold, then it is likely to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

create unnecessary confusion later. Therefore, without entering into the

merit of the case, this Court merely directs the trial Court to appoint a

Commissioner who is regular to the Court and also has reasonable exposure

to civil litigations as an Advocate Commissioner to measure and identify the

property covered in the sale deed of the plaintiff. The respondents /

defendants are told that if in the eventuality of the present construction now

undertaken in the plot falls within the property of the plaintiff, it shall have

to be stopped, and whatever that have been constructed shall necessarily go.

5.This appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

                                                                                         11.12.2023

                     kas

                     Index    : Yes / No
                     Neutral Citation


                     To.

                     The II Additional District Court
                     Tiruppur.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis





                                        N.SESHASAYEE, J.
                                                           kas










                                                  11.12.2023




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis