Dhanalakhmi v. Sumathi

CMP(MD) No.3181 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Third day of June Two Thousand Twenty PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice R.THARANI CMP(MD) No.3181 of 2020 IN SA(MD) No.246 of 2020 DHANALAKHMI ... PETITIONER/ APPELLANT Vs 1 SUMATHI 2 THE COMMISSIONER, SIVAGANGAI MUNICIPALITY, SIVAGANGAI.

... RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to stay the operation of the Judgment and Decree dated 01.02.2020 passed in A.S.No.102 of 2017 on the file of the Sub Court, Sivagangai pending disposal of the above Second Appeal and thus render justice.

PRAYER IN SA(MD) No.246 of 2020:

To set aside the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2020 passed in A.S.No.102 of 2017 on the file of the Sub Court, Sivagangai reversing the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2017 passed in O.S.No.90 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai.

ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.G.PRABHU RAJADURAI, Advocate for the petitioner and of M/s.K.PERIASAMY, Advocate for R1, while admitting the second appeal, the court made the following order:- Both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the first respondent are present.

2.On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the appellant sold some properties to various persons and he gifted the pathway to the municipality. Later he came to know that there is no necessity to give the pathway to the municipality. The municipality https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

CMP(MD) No.3181 of 2020 permitted the appellant to cancel the gift deed. On such permission, the appellant cancelled the gift deed and there is no public pathway in the property. The second respondent has also admitted the cancellation of the gift deed in the written statement. The first respondent filed a suit claiming public pathway. The second respondent is having access to two other pathways in his own property. He has no esmentary right or any other right in the pathway and he filed a suit and the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The first appeal was allowed by the first appellate Court. Against which, the appellant preferred this second appeal. 3.On the side of the first respondent, it is stated that the pathway is in existence. It is a public pathway and in all the sale deeds executed by the defendants, the pathway was shown as public pathway. The respondent is having right of access through the pathway.

4.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that no injunction order was granted in favour of the respondent throughout the proceedings and prayed for an order of status quo. 5.I am convinced that an order of status quo is necessary. Hence, C.M.P.(MD)No.3181 of 2020 is allowed and the order of status quo is granted as on today till the disposal of the second appeal. sd/- 03/06/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, SIVAGANGAI.

2 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF, SIVAGANGAI.

+1 CC to M/s.G.PRABHU RAJADURAI, Advocate ( SR-5735[I] dated 03/06/2020 ) ORDER IN CMP(MD) No.3181 of 2020 IN SA(MD) No.246 of 2020 Date :03/06/2020 MRN AE/PN/SAR-3/22.06.2020/2P.4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2