S.A. No. 446 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013. Case: Lakshmi Vs K. Ramani and Santhi Ramani. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | S.A. No. 446 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. A. Muthukumar, Adv. |
| Judges | G. Rajasuria, J. |
| Issue | Property Law |
| Judgement Date | April 30, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Judgment:
G. Rajasuria, J.
-
This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff, inveighing the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2013 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam in A.S. No. 2 of 2012 confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2011 passed by the learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam in O.S. No. 173 of 2008. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.
-
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Despite printing the name of the learned counsel for the respondents/Caveators, no one appeared.
-
A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:
-
Lakshmi the mother of D1 filed the suit seeking injunction as against D1, her son and D2- her son's wife in respect of the property described in the schedule of the plaint on the main ground that the said property was purchased by her and that the defendants' are trying to interfere with the same.
-
However, the defendants filed the written statement resisting the suit by contending that the father of D1 during his life time, purchased properties in the name of his children citing the mother as the guardian. In fact, in respect of the suit property, wherein a saw mill is being run, the licence was taken in the name of the mother and nothing more, and that would not confer any title in her favour in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff as on the date of the filing of the suit was not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and D1 only has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
-
Only two issues were framed by the trial court as under:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get permanent injunction as prayed for?
and
(ii) To what relief?
-
Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the suit on the main ground that one co-owner cannot get injunction as against another co-owner.
-
Challenging and impugning the same, the plaintiff preferred the appeal on various grounds; whereupon, the first appellate court, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.
-
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgments and decrees of both the for a below, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal by suggesting the following substantial questions of law:
-
-
Whether the courts below erred in...
To continue reading
Request your trial