Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47409
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J
A.C.R.Mani – Appellant
Versus
K.J.Janarathanan – Respondent
Second Appeal | S.A.No.1248 of 2009 | M.P.No.1 of 2009 | CMP.No.9568 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Subramanian
For the Respondents: Mr.P.Chandrasekar
Courts cannot grant injunctions between co-owners without addressing ongoing partition proceedings; participants must have established rights.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act - Section 52 - Permanent injunction sought by owner of undivided share against a co-owner - Courts below erred in granting injunction as the appellant, being a subsequent purchaser, is entitled to participate in the partition proceedings. (Paras 4, 11, 12)
(B) The suit filed by a co-owner seeking injunction against the purchaser of another undivided share is impermissible under the law. Clear demarcation and partition of property are required for any valid relief. (Paras 6, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a Second Appeal against the decrees for permanent injunction that prevented him from interfering with the possession of an undivided share by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court remanded the matter back to the Trial Court.
Findings of Court:
The appellant has the right to participate in ongoing final decree proceedings regarding an undivided share purchased at an auction.
Issues: 1. Validity of injunction against a co-owner (the plaintiff) by another co-owner (the appellant). 2. Whether the suit is infructuous due to pending litigation regarding the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a co-owner cannot seek an injunction against another co-owner without establishing clear rights in an ongoing partition case, reinforcing the need for appropriate legal actions in the pending litigation.
Result: Second Appeal is dismissed, allowing the appellant to participate in the final decree proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. injunction sought by co-owner in ongoing partition proceedings. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. issues of co-owner rights and ongoing injunction implications. (Para 5 , 10) |
| 3. final outcome is dismissal with suggestions for proper legal actions. (Para 11 , 12) |
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN S.A.No.1248 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 and CMP.No.9568 of 2020 A.C.R.Mani ... Appellant / Defendant Vs.
1.K.J.Janarathanan ... Respondent / plaintiff Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2009 in A.S.No.55 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Arani, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2008 in O.S.No.1037 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arani.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondent : Mr.P.Chandrasekar
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2009 in A.S.No.55 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Arani and the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2008 in O.S.No.1037 of
1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arani.
2. Heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.P.Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3. The defendant in O.S.No.1037 of 1990 who had suffered a decree of permanent injunction in the suit filed by the respondent by judgment dated 19.06.2008 and also suffered a remand order in the appeal filed by him in A.S.No.55 of 2008 before the Sub-Court, Arani, is before this Court filing this Second Appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant insisted that the second Appeal had been admitted on 05.01.2010 and two substantial questions of law had been framed as follows:
"1.Whether in law are not the Courts below wrong in decreeing suit when the prayer in the suit had become infructuous as seen from Exhibit A4 dated 07.02.1995 in which O.S.No.47/1989 had been dismissed?
2.Are not the Courts below wrong in overlooking that the plaintiff being owner of undivided share is not entitled to seek injunction against other co-owner?"
5. I must also state that the noting in that regard is not available in the Court bundle. Be that as it may, the suit in O.S.No.1037 of 1990 had been filed by the plaintiff / respondent seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant / appellant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff without taking legal steps in O.S.No.47 of 1989 pending before the Sub Court, Arani. O.S.No.47 of 1989 had been filed by a purchaser under Court auction of an undivided 1/6th share from one of the co-owners of the suit schedule property. He sought partition and separate possession of the undivided 1/6th share. That suit was decreed on 31.10.1990 and I am informed that a final decree application has been filed and it is pending. In the meanwhile, the other co- sharer had filed O.S.No.1037 of 1990 before the District Munsif Court, Arani restraining the appellant / defendant from interfering with his undivided 1/6th share.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the right of the appellant to have purchased the property cannot be denied or disputed, since the vendor had lawful title to dispose of his undivided 1/6th share. The learned counsel then pointed out the reasoning of the First Appellate Court wherein, it has been observed that the sale is hit under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act , since the sale was effected pending the suit. However, the appellant had purchased only an undivided 1/6th share which was the share of his vendor. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that one co-owner cannot have the privilege of injunction against the other co-owner. One of the substantial questions of law under which the Second Appeal has been admitted is whether an injunction could be granted against the co-owner on a suit filed by the another co-owner.
7. The facts i
