KOMALAVALLI AMMAL Vs. VEERAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/plaintiff (since deceased) has preferred the present Second Appeal before this Court as against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 18 of 2000 dated 28.7.2000 passed by the learned Principle Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, in affirming the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 153 of 1999 dated 14.1.2000 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam. During the pendency of the Second Appeal before this Court, the appellant/plaintiff has expired and the Appellants 2 to 6 have been brought on record as legal representatives of the appellant/plaintiff as per the order passed in C.M.P. No. 13275 of 2004, dated 18.8.2005.

(2.) The 1st Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principle Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, while passing the judgment in A.S. No. 18 of 2000 on 28.7.2000 has observed that as per Section 23 of the Kudiyiruppu Act, the lawful orders passed therein cannot be interfered with by the Civil Courts, which have no jurisdiction and consequently, negatived the relief of injunction and dismissed the Appeal without costs, thereby, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

(3.) The trial Court, while passing the judgment in O.S. No. 153 of 1999 on 14.1.2000 has opined that the relief prayed for by the plaintiff is not proper and the appellant/plaintiff has given a confusing detail of property and is making an endeavour to prevent the pending proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer and also, preventing the respondent/defendant from selling and that there is no bona fide intention on the part of the appellant/plaintiff and consequently, held that the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to claim the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for in the plaint and dismissed the Suit, without costs.