2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 62066
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Balaji – Appellant
Versus
Arumugam – Respondent
CMP 8686/2022
['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