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

MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R.THIYAGASUNDARA MUDALIAR – Appellant
Versus
M.VANATHI – Respondent
SA 594/2019



Advocates:
['M/S B P VINOTH', '', 'S DEEPAK RAM', 'M/S R PARATHASARTHY', '', 'RAHUL BALAJI', 'MADHAN BABU', 'FOR R', 'M/S J JOHN KINGSLIN', 'FOR R', 'M/S MOHAMMED FAYAZ ALI', 'FOR R']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 04.02.2022

PRONOUNCED ON : 15.03.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

S.A.No.594 of 2019,

C.M.P.Nos.4499 & 4502 of 2021

and

C.M.P.No.10015 of 2019

G.R.Thiyagasundara Mudaliar

...Appellant / 1st

Respondent / Plaintiff

Vs.

1. M.Vanathi

...1st Respondent / Appellant /

1st Defendant

2. Indian Bank

Thiruvarur,

Represented by its Branch Manager,

Nethaji Road,

Thiruvaur Town & Taluk & Munsif.

3. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Trichy,

Represented by its Senior Divisional

Retail Sales Manager,

Triveni 3rd Floor,

B-35, Shastri Road, Thillai Road,

Trichy -17.

...2nd & 3rd Respondents / 2nd & 3rd

Respondents / 2nd & 3rd Defendants

Prayer:- Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree in

A.S.No.36 of 2018 dated 18.02.2019, on the file of the learned

Subordinate Judge, Thiruvarur reversing the judgment and decree

in O.S.No.110 of 2016 dated 06.06.2018 on the file of the

learned District Munsif, Thiruvarur.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

For Appellants

: Mr.C.Umashankar for

M/s.B.P.Vinoth

For Respondents

: Mr.Satish parosaran for

M/s.R.Parthasarathy for R1

Mr.J.John Kingslin for R2

Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali for R3.

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvarur in A.S.No.36

of 2018 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned

District Munsif in O.S.No.110 of 2016.

2.The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for reliefs, as

follows,

a)Declaring that the power of attorney deed dated 01.06.2012

registered as document No.140/12 on the file of the Sub

Registrar, Tiruvarur is a document coupled with interest and

irrevocable. Hence its revocation is void under law.

b)Granting the relief of permanent injunction restraining

the defendants their men, agents and servants from causing any

interference to the peaceful administration and management and

maintenance of KVR Krishna agencies, Indian Oil Petroleum

Corporation retail outlet at Kattur and the current account

No.6040795018 with the 2nd defendant and in getting supply of

petroleum products from the 3rd defendant in due course of the

business.

c)Granting the relief of permanent injunction restraining

the 1st defendant, her men, agents and servants from terminating

the power of attorney deed dated 01.06.2012 registered as

document No.140/2012 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Tiruvarur.

d)Directing the defendants to pay the cost of this suit.

3.The case of the appellant is that, he hails from a very

noble and respectable and traditional family from Tiruvarur. He

got experience in running retail petroleum products for more

than 40 years and he was a dealer for Hindustan Petroleum

Corporation till sometime back. He was running the business

under the name and style of Krishna Agencies in 25E, Nethaji

Road, Tiruvarur. He has been maintaining current account

facility for his business in account No.449018804 with the

second respondent till now. First respondent and her family

belong to the same caste and community of the appellant and they

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

were family friends for more than a century. Appellant came to

know that third respondent is looking forward to grant a retail

outlet at Kattur, under the female quota. Appellant's daughters

are married and living with their husbands and he found it

difficult to get dealership in their name. Appellant told them

that he was in search of good place at Kattur for locating a

retail outlet. First respondent's father R.Mohan proposed the

idea of granting a lease of his land for establishing the retail

outlet and it was decided to apply the dealership outlet in the

name o

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top