Monisa @ Otchammal v. Mayakkal
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Sixth day of August Two Thousand andTwenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN MONISA @ OTCHAMMAL, VIDE ORDER DATED 26/08/2021, MINOR APPELLANT WAS SUO MOTU DECLARED AS MAJOR AND DISCHARGED FROM THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HER MOTHER KALAISELVI AND GRANDFATHER RASUTHEVAR.) ... Plaintiff/1st Respondent/Appellant (in SA(MD)376/2012).
... Plaintiff/Cross Appellant/ 1st Respondent/Appellant (in SA(MD)377/2012).
Vs
1. MAYAKKAL ... 1st Defendant/Appellant/Respondent (in SA(MD)376/2012).
1stDefendant/Respondent/Appellant/ Respondent (in SA(MD)377/2012).
2. PONNUSAMY ... 2nd Defendant/2nd Respondent/ Respondent in SA(MD)376/2012).
COMMON PRAYER:
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, (Camp at Usilampatti), dated 30/06/2011 passed in Appeal Suit No.126 of 2006,/Cross Appeal in Appeal Suit No.126 of 2006 preferred against the judgment and decree of the court of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti, passed in Original Suit No.126 of 2002, dated 19/01/2006.
DECREE:- These Second Appeal came up for final hearing on this date, upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the judgments and decrees of the Lower Appellate Court and the Court of First Instance and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of MR. P.T.S. NARENDRAVASAN, Advocate for the Appeallant and of MR. J. BARATHAN FOR MR. T.R. JEYAPALAM, Advocate for the respondents, while partly allowing this appeal and declined to grant the relief of recover of possession, this Court doth order and decree as follows:- 1/7
1) that the plaintiff is entitled 1⁄2 share in "C" schedule property.
2) that the plaintiffs is entitled to 1/6th share in "A" schedule property.
3) that the plaintiff is denied relief in respect of "B" schedule property.
4) that the plaintiff is granted preliminary decree declaring her 1⁄2 share in "C" schedule property.
5) that the plaintiff can file independent proceedings under order 20 Rule 12 CPC and final decree petition against the second defendant in respect of "C" schedule property.
6) that there be no costs in these Second Appeals. 2/7
3/7
4/7
5/7
6/7
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) TO
1. The Subordinate Judge, (Camp at Usilampatti).
2. The Disgtrict Munsif cum Juicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti.
Copy to:
The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 2 Copies +1 CC to M/s.PT.S.NARENDRAVASAN, Advocate ( SR-27472 dated 26/08/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.T.R.JEYABALAN, Advocate ( SR-27593 dated 27/08/2021 ) ORDER DATED : 26/08/2021 ========================== DECREE ========================== SA(MD). Nos.376 AND 377 of 2012 Nature of Decree:- Partly Allowing the Second Appeal prefered against the Judgment and Decree of the Sub Court (Camp at Usilampatti), dated 30/06/2011 made in A.S.No.126 of 2006/Cross Appeal in A.S.No.126 of 2006 prefered against the judgment and decree of the District Munsif cum Juicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti, passed in O.S. No.126 of 2002 dated 19/01/2006 etc., as stated within.
NA(CO) TR(09.12.2021) 7P 7C 7/7