S.Karnan v. Chellammal(Died)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.02.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR CRP.No.2141 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.16234 of 2021 S.Karnan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.Chellammal(died) 2.Chokkammal 3.Bharathi 4.E.Boopathi 5.E.Ravi R-1 died, R3 to R5 are brought on record as LR's of the deceased R1 Viz., Chellammal vide Court order dated 13.02.2024 made in CMP.No.2069 of2022 in CRP.No.2141 of 2021

...Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the decree and judgment dated 06.01.2021 rendered in C.M.A.No.2 of 2019 on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Judge, Tiruvallur, confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 15.04.2019 passed in 1/5

I.A.No.2490 of 2015 in O.S.No.274 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif,Tiruvallur.

For Petitioner : M/s.R.Supriya for Mr.P.Raja For respondents : No appearance

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order of dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner passed by lower appellate Court confirming the dismissal of the petition seeking temporary injunction. 2.The petitioner herein filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondents. Pending suit, he sought for temporary injunction in I.ANo.2490 of 2015. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.2 of 2019 on the file of Sub-Court, Tiruvallur. The First Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court 2/5

3. It is seen from the pleadings and impugned order that petitioner herein is claiming title under one Ramachandran. There was earlier round of litigation between said Ramachandran and mother of respondents Kannammal and in earlier suit, the title of Kannammal was declared and injunction was granted against Ramachandran and the same was confirmed by the High Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court. The petitioner appeared to have purchased the suit property from one Dhanapathy who inturn purchased the property from Ramachandran through his power agent Ramu. The said sale transaction had also taken place pending earlier litigation. In such circumstances, the Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that petitioner failed to establish his prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction and dismissed the application.

The First Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Trial Court. The concurrent findings of the Courts below that petitioner, who is claiming right under one Ramachandran, who suffered a decree for declaration and injunction failed to prove prima facie case, is based on the records and the same is not vitiated by any perversity.

regard to the failure of the petitioner to establish prima facie case. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. However, taking into consideration the main suit is of the year 2015, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

20.02.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No nr To The learned Sub-Ordinate Judge, Tiruvallur, 4/5

S.SOUNTHAR , J.

nr CRP.No.2141 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.16234 of 2021 20.02.2024 5/5