SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 62066

MADRAS HIGH COURT
Balaji – Appellant
Versus
Arumugam – Respondent
CMP 8686/2022



Advocates:
['Y KAJANAVAS', '', 'P VINCY RANI', 'M/S T P PRABAKARAN', '', 'RR TO - GIVEN UP', '', 'PRIVATE NOTICE', 'RR TO - GIVEN UP VIDE IN EB', 'N ILAKKIYA']

C.M.P.Nos.8686, 8687 of 2022

C.M.P.Nos.8686, 8687 of 2022

and A.S.No.240 of 2022

S.SOUNTHAR , J.

The petitioners seek an order of injunction restraining the respondents

from alienating to the suit schedule property and also put up any new

construction in the suit schedule property pending this appeal.

2. The petitioners / appellants filed a suit for declaration of title and

recovery of possession in O.S.No.95 of 2019 on the file of II Additional

District Judge, Vellore at Ranipet. The respondents 1 to 4 filed an

application for rejection of plaint in I.A.No.4 of 2020 on the ground the

relief sought for by the appellants / plaintiffs were barred by limitation. The

petition for rejection of the plaint filed by the respondents 1 to 4 was allowed

by the Court below after giving a finding that the suit is barred by limitation.

Consequently, the plaint was rejected. Challenging the said order the

petitioners have come up this first appeal. The relief of declaration and

possession sought for by the petitioners before the Court below was rejected

by the Court on the ground that the relief was already barred by limitation.

3. In these circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to any

prohibitory order of injunction as prayed for. It is settled law any alienation

S.SOUNTHAR,J.

1/2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.Nos.8686, 8687 of 2022

rna

by the party to the modification is subject to the action of lis-pendense.

Therefore, any alienation by the respondents would not effect the right of the

petitioners. In view of the fact that the trial Court rejected the plaint

presented by the petitioners on the ground of limitation, this Court is not

inclined to exercise it's discretion power in respect of the prayer for

injunction restraining the respondents from putting up any construction in

the suit property. However, the respondents are not entitled to claim any

equity in respect of the construction put up by them pending this appeal.

4. With these observations, both the CMP's are dismissed.

19.09.2022

rna

C.M.P.Nos.8686, 8687 of 2022

and A.S.No.240 of 2022

2/2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top