Madras High Court
G.G.Ramachandran vs G.K.Jenarthanan (Died) on 25 September, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.1008 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.1008 of 2023
G.G.Ramachandran. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.G.K.Jenarthanan (died),
2.G.J.Suriyamani,
3.G.J.Kumaran,
4.G.J.Hanumanthan,
5.G.M.Easwari,
6.Minor.G.M.Nagarajan,
7.Minor.G.M.Krishnan.
(R6 & R7 are represented by their mother and guardian/
5th respondent herein) ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule I (r) of
the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
22.08.2023 made in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.27 of 2023 on the file of
the Additional District Court, Paramakudi.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Senthil
For Respondents :
for R2 to R7 : Mr.A.R.Kannappan
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 6
C.M.A.(MD) No.1008 of 2023
*****
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed challenging the dismissal of the
injunction application filed by the appellant herein.
2. The appeal arises under the following circumstances:
a. The appellant filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.27 of 2023
before the Additional District Court, Paramakudi. He filed I.A.No.1 of
2023 for an injunction restraining the first and second respondents herein
from alienating the suit property.
b. Initially, an order was passed in the said I.A.No.1 of 2023
restraining the respondents herein from alienating the suit property. After
the respondents entered appearance and had filed a counter, the interim
injunction was vacated and I.A.No.1 of 2023 was dismissed by the Trial
Court.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and the first respondent purchased the suit schedule property jointly by
Ex.A1/Sale deed; that since the appellant was living in Andra Pradesh for
business purposes, he had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour
of the first respondent, who had misused the General Power of Attorney
and executed a sham and nominal Sale deed in favour of the second
respondent, who is his wife; and that he came to know about the said Sale
deed only in the year 2022 and had filed the suit for partition; that a prima
facie case is made out and balance of convenience was in favour of the
appellant for granting injunction; and that the Trial Court ought not to
have dismissed his petition for interim injunction.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 7, per contra,
submitted that it is true that they jointly purchased the suit schedule
property in the year 1994; that thereafter, on 28.11.2007, the appellant had
executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of the first respondent
(since deceased) giving power to alienate the property; that the Sale deed
was executed in 2014 in favour of the second respondent and eight years
thereafter, in order to grab the property, the appellant filed the suit and
injunction; and that therefore, the Trial Court was right in dismissing the
injunction petition.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The only point for consideration in the instant appeal is ‘whether
the appellant is entitled to an order of interim injunction as prayed for?’
6. It is seen from the records that the General Power of Attorney
was executed in the year 2007 and the Sale deed in favour of the second
respondent by the first respondent was executed on 26.06.2014. The suit
was filed in the year 2023. Considering the above facts and the fact that
the terms of the General Power of Attorney have not been violated, this
Court is of the view that the finding of the Trial Court that the appellant
had not established a prima facie case cannot be faulted. Point No.1 is
answered accordingly.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
However, the Trial Court may decide the suit on merits without being
influenced by any of the observations made in this order or in the
impugned order.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
25.09.2024
Index: Yes/ No
NCC: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
apd
To:
1.The Additional District Court, Paramakudi.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
apd
25.09.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
