Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Aggrieved by the denial of declaratory portion of the decree, the plaintiffs preferred A.S.No.68 of 2011 and A.S.No.69 of 2011 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge came to a conclusion by confirming the findings of the Trial Court, but modified the decree of the Trial Court and held that where the main relief has been denied the consequential relief of injunction cannot be granted. Against the said concurrent finding, the present Second Appeals have been preferred before this Court.

17. At this stage Mr.Ruban Chakravarthy would submit that his clients have already filed suits in O.S.Nos.202 to 206 of 2013 before the Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, seeking relief of recovery of possession. Therefore, by virtue of the decree of the Trial Court, the defendants have already initiated proceedings to evict the plaintiffs only in accordance with law. Hence the apprehension of Mr.Anbu, that his clients will be forcibly dispossessed from the suit property does not arise.

18. In fine, the question of law suggested by Mr.Anbu to admit these appeals do not arise. I have no other option than to confirm the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam in A.S.Nos.68 and 69 of 2011 dated 28.03.2013 in partly modifying and confirming the Judgment and Decree of the learned Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam in O.S.No.356 of 2004 dated 31.10.2011. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  S.A.Nos.976 and 977 of 2013

19. In the result, the Second Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

14.03.2024 Jer Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No To

1.The Principal Subordinate Judge Tindivanam.