Madras High Court
Alagu vs Maruthan .. 1St on 15 May, 2024
C.R.P.(MD).No.1198 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.05.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
C.R.P.(MD).No.1198 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.6925 of 2024
Alagu .. Petitioner/1st Respondent/
Petitioner/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Maruthan .. 1st Respondent/Appellant/
3rd Respondent/3rd Defendant
2.Raman
3.Sarasu
4.Vijaya
5.Alagu .. Respondents 2 to 5/Respondents 2 to 5/
Respondents 1, 2, 4 & 5/
Defendants 1, 2, 4 & 5
6.Ammal .. 6th Respondent/6th Respondent/
6th Respondent/6th Defendant
7.Thangarasu
8.Rasu .. Respondents 7 & 8/Respondents 7 & 8/
Respondents 7 & 8/Defendants 7 & 8
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.1198 of 2024
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to call for the records and set aside the judgment and
decree dated 06.04.2024 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2022 on the file of the
Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai reversing the fair and decretal order dated
19.04.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.1 of 2021 on the file of the
District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Singampunari and to allow
the Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.N.Ramanathan
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order
passed in C.M.A.No.2 of 2022 dated 06.04.2024, wherein, the Appellate
Court has reversed the order of injunction granted by the Trial Court.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she is the daughter of the second
respondent/first defendant herein and according to her, the suit properties
consisting of two items, in which, one item was sold in the year 1989 and
the second item was sold in the year 2018 by her father. The petitioner
claims that the nature of the suit properties are ancestral properties. She
also derives share in the suit properties, but without considering her request
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for partition, her father has sold the suit properties. Subsequently, the
purchaser is also taking steps to construct a house over the property. Hence,
the petitioner has immediately initiated a suit in O.S.No.1 of 2021 on the
file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Singampunari.
3. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court has granted injunction
against the respondents injuncting them from altering the physical features
of the suit properties. Aggrieved over the same, the first respondent/third
defendant has filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.2 of 2022 on the file of the
learned Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai. After due enquiry, the Appellate
Court has dismissed the injunction petition after setting aside the order of
injunction granted by the Trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, this Civil
Revision Petition has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relationship
between the parties have been admitted in the written statement and the
Trial Court was also satisfied with the prima facie case and after
considering the balance of convenience, granted injunction in favour of the
petitioner. However, the Appellate Court has not properly appreciated the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fact that the nature of the properties are ancestral properties and the
petitioner is also having a share over the same. It is also admitted by the
contesting respondents that they are developing the property. If the same is
permitted, it would cause prejudice to the interest of the petitioner herein.
Hence, the learned counsel prays to set aside the order passed by the
Appellate Court.
5. The matter is listed 'for admission' today. Heard the learned
counsel for the petitioner and also perused the records.
6. On perusal of the plaint, it shows that the petitioner claims that the
suit properties are ancestral properties, whereas, except the patta to show
that the suit properties stand in the name of the first defendant's father, no
other documents have been produced to prove the ancestral nature of the
properties. It is also recorded by the Appellate Court that in the year 1989
itself, one of the properties was sold and the validity of the sale has been
questioned at this point of time. The second item of the suit properties was
also sold in the year 2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner/plaintiff is alive and the
documents relied on to prove the title to the property only shows that the
first defendant's father was in possession of the property and patta was also
issued in his name. Since the petitioner's father is alive, in the absence of
any document to show that the suit properties are ancestral properties, a
prima facie case is not made out in favour of the petitioner herein. Per
contra, the documents only show that the first defendant's father was the
original title holder and subsequently, after his death, the first defendant
derives the title over the property. In such circumstances, the first defendant
is having a better title and having right to alienate the property and granting
injunction at this stage based on the documents produced in favour of the
petitioner is not proper. Hence, the Appellate Court has rightly set aside the
order of injunction granted in favour of the petitioner and this Court finds
no grounds to reverse the order of the Appellate court.
8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs. It is made clear that since this Civil Revision
Petition is dismissed based on the available records placed before this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court, the Trial Court is directed to decide the suit without influenced by the
observations made herein. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
stands closed.
15.05.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Lm
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Sivagangai.
2.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court,
Singampunari.
3.The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.RAJASEKAR,J.
Lm
15.05.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
