MOTILAL Vs. B.K.BABU SAHIB
LAWS(MAD)-2019-5-194
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on May 23,2019

MOTILAL Appellant
VERSUS
B.K.Babu Sahib Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SMT. SURAJ KUMARI VS. DISTRICT JUDGE,MIRZAPUR AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SIDDALINGESHWAR AND OTHERS VS. VIRUPASGOUDA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
T ARIVANDANDAM VS. T V SATYAPAL [REFERRED TO]
BHOOP SINGH VS. RAM SINGH MAJOR [REFERRED TO]
P T THOMAS VS. THOMAS JOB [REFERRED TO]
RAMA NARANG VS. RAMESH NARANG [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPA DEVI BHAGAT VS. RAJINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BIMAL KUMAR VS. SHAKUNTALA DEBI [REFERRED TO]
R. RAJANNA VS. S.R. VENKATASWAMY [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This second appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge, Thiruvannamalai in A.S.No.29 of 2012 dtd. 1/4/2013 reversing the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai dtd. 11/4/2012 made in the un-numbered suit, wherein the plaint has been rejected.
(2.)The respondents had filed a suit on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai to declare that the decree in O.S.No.368 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Thiruvannamalai dtd. 5/9/2001 is null and void and in-operative and not binding on them as against the provisions of law; to restrain the defendants, their men, etc by means of permanent injunction from claiming any right under the said impugned decree; to restrain the defendants, their men, agents etc by means of permanent injunction from interfering with the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs 3 and 4 over the suit property. The learned Principal District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai by the Order dtd. 11/4/2012 had rejected the plaint. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff's had filed an appeal in A.S.No.29 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Thiruvannamalai. The learned Principal Sub-Judge, Thiruvannamalai by the judgment dtd. 1/4/2013 had allowed the said appeal and set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and directed the plaintiffs to re-present the plaint within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and on such re-presentation, the Trial Court has to take the case on file and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Feeling, aggrieved, the defendants have filed the present second appeal.
(3.)For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as described before the Trial Court.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.