Search Judgments

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 8 Rule 9; Mohameddan Law Section 149 –  This case involves two appeals (A.S.No.223 of 2017 and A.S.No.224 of 2017) arising from a partition suit (O.S.No.1 of 2014) and a counter-claim filed in the Additional District and Sessions Court, Ariyalur. The plaintiff, son of the first defendant and brother of defendants 2 and 3, sought partition of a property purchased by his deceased father, Samsudeen. The defendants contested, claiming the plaintiff had relinquished his share due to prior debts settled by their father and further sought partition of a readymade cloth shop.

The defendants also attempted to introduce a Hiba deed, claiming the father gifted the suit property to the first defendant, but the Trial Court rejected it.

Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (TNRRRLT Act) – Section 2(c), 4(2), 21(2)(a) – This revision petition was filed by a tenant challenging the order of the Rent Tribunal in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in RLTA.No.238 of 2023, which allowed a subsequent purchaser to be impleaded in the Rent Law Tribunal Appeal (RLTA). The tenant argued that the purchaser had no cause of action and that accepting rent created a new tenancy, barring eviction. The landlord’s counsel argued that as a successor-in-interest, the purchaser inherited the vendor’s rights, including the eviction order.

The High Court noted that the original eviction petition was filed under Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act, alleging failure to enter into a tenancy agreement as per Section 4(2).

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 50, 100, 104 and 114(g);& Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 27, Rule 1 – This case concerns a dispute over the partition of family property. The plaintiffs claimed they were the children of Dasabovi through his first wife, while the defendants, Dasabovi’s second wife and their son, denied the first marriage. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the High Court reversed this decision, decreeing the suit for partition in favor of the plaintiffs.

The key issue revolved around proving the marital relationship between Dasabovi and the plaintiffs’ mother.

Constitution of India Article 227; Hindu Marriage Act – The case involves a matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife who married in India according to Hindu customs but later moved to the USA. The husband initiated divorce proceedings in the USA, while the wife returned to India and filed a suit seeking an injunction to restrain the husband from continuing the legal proceedings in the USA and from initiating any further legal action in the USA regarding their matrimonial dispute or the custody of their daughters. The wife also sought a direction for the husband to cooperate in renewing their younger daughter’s passport. The trial court allowed the interim injunction against the husband’s US proceedings but dismissed the application for passport renewal.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 92 – This revision petition challenges the trial court’s order granting leave to the plaintiffs to institute a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant argues that Section 92 applies only to public trusts, not registered societies like the plaintiff. The defendant also claims the plaint lacks evidence and aims to harass them, further contending that no Kalyana Mandapam exists, rendering the plaintiff’s case false.

The plaintiff argues that at the leave stage, they need not file documents or have a detailed inquiry.

Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 Section 5, 7, 8 and 12; The Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act, 1957 Section 7 – This case involves a revision petition filed by a borrower against the dismissal of his original petition under Sections 3, 5, 8, and 12 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. The borrower argued that the lender, being a money lender, should be restricted to charging a maximum of 9% interest per annum on a mortgage loan of Rs. 75 lakhs, referencing Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act, 1957 and citing judgments where the court capped interest to 9% per annum for secured loans.

The lender contended that the loan was intended for business improvement, disbursed via cheque (Rs.

Limitation Act 1963 Section 6(1) Article 65 – This case involves a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of property originally owned by Chellamuthu Chettiar. After his death, the property devolved upon his three sons. Two of the sons executed a release deed in favor of the third son, Nagalingam Chettiar, the father of the first plaintiff. Subsequently, the two sons who released their rights sold the property to the first defendant while the first plaintiff was a minor, and his mother was alive.

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) – Section 36, 37, 40, 79 & Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC – The core issue of the case is whether a suit seeking a common law remedy of permanent injunction is maintainable before a civil court or barred under Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, given the powers vested in the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA).

The petitioner argued that the suit is not maintainable due to the bar under Section 79 of the RERA Act, contending that the RERA Tribunal alone has jurisdiction over the issues raised, citing Sections 36 and 37 of the RERA Act, which empower the authority to grant injunctions.

Conversely, the respondent/developer argued that the suit for a bare permanent injunction is an equitable remedy maintainable in a Civil Court, asserting that Sections 36 and 37 operate in different spheres and do not empower the RERA authority to grant such an injunction.

The court analyzed Sections 36, 37, and 40 of the RERA Act and concluded that the common law equitable remedy of permanent injunction is not available to the plaintiff under any of the provisions of the RERA Act.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 151, Order 38 Rule 5 & 11(b) – This revision petition was filed by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money, challenging the Trial Court’s order that dismissed I.A. No.1 of 2021. The plaintiff sought to set aside a sale deed executed by the defendants, arguing they violated an undertaking given to the Court to furnish security for the suit claim. The defendants, however, disposed of the property to a third party (5th respondent).

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 97, Rule 99, Rule 102, Section 47 & Section 151 – This case involves two Civil Revision Petitions (CRPs) challenging orders passed by the Execution Court. CRP No. 2920 of 2025 was filed by the legal heirs of a purchaser challenging the return of their application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 r/w Section 151 of CPC. CRP No.