Madras High Court
Suseelarani vs S. Kesavan on 29 October, 2025
O.A No. 780 of 2025 in
C.S.No.178 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
OA No. 780 of 2025 in
C.S.No.178 of 2025
1. Suseelarani
2. A.Nalini
3. Kamalakannan
Applicant(s)
Vs
1. S. Kesavan
2.Y.Meenakshi
3.M.Vinoth Kumar
4.Lakshmi Narayanan
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Original Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules R/w
Order 39 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code to grant an ad interim injunction
restraining the respondents 1 to 3/defendants 1 to 3 from in any manner
interfering with the Applicants/Plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit property/schedule property in Judges Summons, pending disposal of the
above suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:06 pm )
O.A No. 780 of 2025 in
C.S.No.178 of 2025
For Applicant(s): Mr.P.S. Amalraj
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Balasingh for R2 & R3
ORDER
This application has been filed by the applicants / plaintiffs to grant an ad
interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 3/defendants 1 to 3 from in
any manner interfering with the Applicants/Plaintiffs' peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit property/schedule property till the disposal of the suit.
rd rd rd
2. According to the 3 applicant, he is the 3 applicant and 3 plaintiff is
the main suit and the averments made in the present application are as follows:-
(i) The main suit has been filed by the applicants for declaration and for
th
permanent injunction. The applicants in this application and the 4 defendant in
the main suit are daughters and sons of one Lakshmi and Krishnamoorthy. The
schedule mentioned property was originally owned and in possession by
maternal grand father, viz., Bangaru Chettiar. The said Bangaru Chettiar
purchased the property through sale deed dated 15.10.1959 and got married to
one Nagammal and due to the wedlock, a daughter, namely, Lakshmi, who is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:06 pm )
O.A No. 780 of 2025 in
the mother of the applicants and 4th defendant was born on 20.07.1951. During
the life time, the said Bangaru Chettiyar had also another relationship with one
Rajammal and Saraswathi as well. The legally wedded wife of Bangaru
Chettiyar, namely, Nagammal died after giving birth to Lakshmi, who is the
mother of the applicants /plaintiffs and 4th defendant in the main suit. The said
Rajammal and Saraswathi also died without any issues. The said Bangaru
Chettiyar also died on 27.10.1981, leaving behind mother of the applicants, viz.,
Lakshmi as his only legal heir. Hence she alone was entitled to the properties of
the said Bangaru Chettiyar.
(ii) The said Lakshmi got married to one Krishnamurthy and had sons and
daughters, namely, Suseelarani, Nalini, Kamalakannan and Lakshmi Narayanan.
The said Krishnamurthy, father of the applicants died on 09.02.1997 and
thereafter, sister of the applicant also died as spinster on 17.03.1997 and
another sister, Saraswathi got married with one Srinivasan and had no issues to
them and she also died in the year 2003 leaving behind her husband as her legal
heirs, while so, the sister of the plaintiffs' grand father, Bangaru Chettiyar,
namely, Annakili filed a petition for Letters of Administration in respect of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:06 pm )
O.A No. 780 of 2025 in
suit property in O.P.No.9 of 1986 on the file of this Court falsely claiming that
she is the only legal heir of Bangaru Chettiyar. The plaintiffs' mother contested
the above said application and thereby the said petition was converted into
T.O.S. No.5 of 1986 and thereafter, the said petition was allowed. The said
Annakili was allowed to maintain the suit property up to two years, i.e.,
23.07.2004 on executing a security bond in the said T.O.S.No.5 of 1986. This
Court categorically set at liberty the said Lakshmi to initiate separate
proceedings for declaration as daughter of Bangaru Chettiyar through his wife
Nagammal. Further, this Court clearly ordered that the said Annakili shall not
create encumbrance or alienation of the property without prior permission of
this Court.
(iii) Thereafter, the said Lakshmi, mother of the applicants approached
the City Civil Court by filing the suit in O.S.No.3019 of 2004, meantime, the
said Annakili died on 21.02.2007. Thereafter, the suit was decreed in favour of
the mother of the plaintiffs, viz., Lakshmi on 01.03.2017 and was declared as
daughter of the Bangaru Chettiyar. The said Bangaru Chettiyar, during his
lifetime, mortgaged the property for the marriage expenses of his daughter, viz.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:06 pm )
O.A No. 780 of 2025 in
Lakshmi. After obtaining a decree from the Civil Court, the said Lakshmi in
terms of the Judgment of this Court in T.O.S.No.5 of 1986 started to enjoy the
suit property / schedule property and during the lifetime of Lakshmi, ten tenants
were occupying the portions on the ground floor of the suit property / schedule
property. The 1st floor of the suit property was occupied by Lakshmi,
Kamalakannan and 4th defendant. After the demise of Lakshmi on 08.10.2022,
the 2nd respondent / 2nd defendant in the year July 2024 approached the
applicants and the 4th defendant in the suit and indicated that she purchased the
property from the 1st respondent through registered sale deed dated 23.11.2017.
(iv) The 1st respondent though seemed to have obtained the suit property /
schedule property by bequeathing from Annakili, the 1st respondent, who was
working as servant under Annakili obtained a Will relating to the suit property
illegally. The said Annakili was specifically restrained by this Court from
alienating the property. Further, without knowledge of the applicants filed a
petition in O.P.No.186 of 2014 for probate and the same was also allowed and
the applicants filed an application to revoke the orders passed by this Court.
Thereafter, the 2nd respondent attempted to alienate the properties in favour of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:06 pm )
O.A No. 780 of 2025 in
3rd parties and the applicants / plaintiffs filed a suit and while pendency of the
suit, the respondents have attempted to interfere the applicants' possession and
enjoyment of the property. All of a sudden, the respondents also demolished the
dilapidated condition of the building. However, the applicants are in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the property, therefore, filed this application.
3. The respondents filed counter, wherein it is averred as follows:-
(i) The averments made in the application that the applicants / plaintiffs'
grand mother, Nagammal got married to one Bangaru Chettiyar and out of the
wedlock, the applicants/ plaintiffs' mother, Lakshmi was born on 20.07.1951 is
absolutely false. Further, in the birth certificate, the date is mentioned as
15.02.1951 and the mother's name is mentioned as Manjammal. The Tahsildar
issued legal heir certificate by mentioning the name of the mother as
Nagammal, whereas in the Judgment in O.S.No.3019 of 2004 dated 01.03.2017,
the name of the mother of the applicants / plaintiffs is mentioned as
Sarathambal. Therefore, the paternity of the plaintiffs' mother is being
questioned by the respondents. The said Bangaru Chettiar married one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:06 pm )
O.A No. 780 of 2025 in
Rajammal and Mandiamma after the death of one Nagammal. The said
Bangaru Chettiyar has no issues through his two wifes.
(ii) The applicants / plaintiffs' mother, viz., Lakshmi filed a suit in
O.S.No.3019 of 2004 before the learned V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai as against the said Annakili. After filing of the Written statement, the
suit was not pursued and thereafter, the suit was dismissed for default on
11.08.2006. In the meantime, the said Annakili died on 21.02.2007. Thereafter,
the applicants / plaintiffs' mother filed an application to restore the suit with
condonation of delay of 892 days without impleading the legal heirs of the said
Annakili and only included Tahsildar, therefore, they obtained decree after the
demise of Annakili. The 1st respondent / 1st defendant after knowing the fraud
committed by the plaintiffs' mother, he filed an application to set aside the
fraudulent order before the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the
same is still pending. In fact, the said Annakili bequeathed the property to the 1st
respondent through the registered Will. The 1st respondent obtained Letters of
Administration in O.P.No.186 of 2014 dated 08.03.2016 mutated all the revenue
records in his name and he was in possession and enjoyment of the property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:06 pm )
O.A No. 780 of 2025 in
Thereafter, the 1st respondent sold the suit property to the 2nd respondent vide
registered document dated 23.11.2017. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent sold the
property to the 3rd respondent vide registered document dated 25.04.2025 and he
also mutated all the revenue records and he was in possession and enjoyment of
the property. Already the 2nd respondent obtained demolition order for the old
and dilapidated building. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent bifurcated the property
into two portions, one portion was sold to G.N.Ganesh through sale deed dated
30.07.2025 and the other portion was sold to G.N.Kirankumar through sale deed
dated 30.07.2025.
(iii) Now, the properties are under the possession of the respective
purchasers. The averments in the petition that the applicants / plaintiffs and the
4th defendant are owners and they are in possession are not correct. Therefore,
the applicants / plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the property
and they are not entitled to any reliefs and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire
documents placed on record carefully.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:06 pm )
O.A No. 780 of 2025 in
5. It is seen from the records that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for relief
of declaration and permanent injunction. According to the applicants /
plaintiffs, they are the owners of the property and the property originally belong
to Bangaru Chettiyar and the said Bangaru Chettiyar married one Nagammal
and they had a daughter namely, Lakshmi. The said Lakshmi married one
Krishnamurthy. The applicants / plaintiffs and the 4th defendant in C.S.No.178
of 2025 have born to the said Lakshmi and Krishnamurthy, therefore, the
property belong to Bangaru Chettiyar, after his death derived to the mother of
the plaintiffs' Lakshmi and the said Lakshmi died intestate leaving behind the
applicants and the 4th defendant to succeed her estate. Therefore, they are
entitled to the property and they are in enjoyment of the property.
6. Further, the respondents / defendants denied the title of the said
Lakshmi and according to them, the said Bangaru Chettiyar had no issues and
according to them, the said Bangaru Chettiyar never married Nagammal and the
said Lakshmi was not born to the said Bangaru Chettiyar and Nagammal. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:06 pm )
O.A No. 780 of 2025 in
said property was administered by Annakili and the said Annakili bequeathed
the property to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent obtained Letters of
Administration in respect of the property and thereafter, he sold the property to
the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent sold the property to the 3rd respondent
and the 3rd respondent, in turn, sold the property to one G.N.Ganesh and
G.N.Kiran Kumar and now, they are in possession and enjoyment of the
property.
7. It is relevant to note that in this case, it is admitted fact that already the
building was in existence and the same was old building in dilapidated
condition, subsequently after obtaining orders from the Corporation, the said
building was demolished. Since the property was a building and now is vacant
site and possession of the property has to be proved by way of filing adequate
documents and the applicants / plaintiffs have not filed any documents to show
that they are in possession and without the documents to prove the possession,
injunction cannot be granted. Further, the applicants have to establish the
primafacie case, based on evidence and irreparable loss, but not established.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:06 pm )
O.A No. 780 of 2025 in
Therefore, the applicants are not entitled for any relief at present through this
Application.
In the result, the present application is dismissed.
29-10-2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ssd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:06 pm )
O.A No. 780 of 2025 in
P.DHANABAL J.
ssd
29-10-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:06 pm )
