IN THE COURT THE DISTRICT JUDGE IF TIRUVANNAMALAI

OS.No. 16/2014

1. Mr. Murugan
2. Mr. S. Sasikumar
3. Mrs. C. Vasuki
4. Mrs. K. Bhavani
5. Mrs. K. Meenachi
6. Mr. K. Ram prasaath
7. Mr. M. Chakrapani
8. Mrs. C. Krishnaveni
9. Mr. C. Jayakumar …Plaintiffs

/Vs/

1. Mr. R. Krishnamorthi
2. Mr. R. Devendran
3. Mr. R. Sekar
4. Mr. R. Ravi (Died)
5. Mr. R. Gandhi
6. Mrs. R. Sarsvathi
7. Mr. R. Muralidharan
8. Mr. R. Skaylab Babu
9. Mr. R. Prabhu …Defendants

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st DEFENDANT

UNDER ORDER 8 RULE 1 AND SEC 151 CPC

01. The defendants vehemently denied the averments in this plaint as false
vexations and invented and except those are speafically admitted by them rest of
the same has to be proved by the plaintiffs very strictly. Primafacie no case has
and suit is not maintains been made out upon the anvery perusal of the Plaint and
for this aspect, the case of the plaintiff is deserving to be dismasted at this earlier
stage.
 ..2..

02. The defendants averments in para no 3 of the plaint that one Mrs.
Kanniammal executed a settlement deed and settled the properties in favour of the
plaintiffs 1 to 4 along with deceased Kartheepan and their father 7 th plaintiff as per
the registered document dated at 18.07.1968 by creating the life interest in favour
of 7th plaintiff Chakrapanni and subsequently infavour of grand son and daughters
are all absolutely as false vexations and invented and put the plaintiff to strict proof
of the same.

03. The defendants vehemently denied the averments as false in para 3 of

the plaint that since the properties sold to the present defendants father Rayar
Naidu by 7th plaintiff namely Chakarapani udaiyar, the plaintiffs 1 to 4 along with
deceased Kartheeban the father of the plaintiff 4 to 6 filed the suit OS.No. 31/2021
to declare that the sale deed executed by 7 th plaintiff Chakarapani is not binding
and which was culminated in to a decree on 13.09.1993 and put the plaintiff to
strict proof of the same.

04. It is true that the father of the defendants Rayar Naidu filed an appeal
in AS. No. 31 of 1994 before the subordinate judge of Tiruvannamalai which was
also dismissed on 28.03.1995.

05. It is true that again the un successful appellant Rayar Naidu filed
second appeal before the High Court of the judicature Madras, in SA.No 382 of
1996 and during the pendency of the appeal the appellant Rayar Naidu died and
present defendants in the suit have been brought on record as legal representatives
of the deceased appellant Rayar Naidu and the Honourable High Court of Madras
also dismissed the second appeal on 23.12.2011.

06. The defendants vehemently denied the averments in para 5 of the

plaint that the plaintiff right over the property have been declared by the court from
lower court to appellate court and the alleged sale deed in the name of present
defendant father Rayar Naidu was declared as null and void and the plaintiff has to
prove the same.

07. The defendants denied the averment as absolutely false as that the
plaintiff have got absolute right over the properties and they are entitled to take
possession of the properties after the life time of the estate holder sakarapani
udayar who is the 7th plaintiff here in. It is further false to state that since the
 ..3..

alleged sale infavour of deceased Rayar Naidu was declared as “Null and Void”
by judicial process the defendants have no right to the in possession of property
and the defendants are bound to surrender possession to the plaintiffs and it’s false
to state that the defendants possession has no legal sanction at all.

08. It is squarely false to state that the defendants who were put in to the
possession of the properties on the basis of invalid alienation have no right to be in
possession of the properties and then it is unwarranted to them to by asking
surrender back possession of the property the plaintiffs herein immediately and this
plaintiffs cannot claim a such right.

09. It is false to state that the plaintiffs on several times approached the
defendants to vacate and deliver actual physical possession of properties and it is
also false to state that the defendants have not come forward to surrender actual
physical possession of property and similarly they have no such right and they
cannot approach the defendants as such and the plaintiff have no right to side the
suit before this Hon’ble Court for appropriate reliefs.

10. The plaintiffs wrongly valued the suit and they have burled the real
value of the property. The plaintiff have not approached the Court with Klean
hands.

11. The prayer of the plaintiff to directing this defendants to deliver the
actual physical possession of property here in immediately by vocative the suit
property is absolutely wrong and the defendants have not had any bound and duty
to comply the dements of plaintiffs.

The true facts are as follow:-

12. The suit property originally belongs to one Kanniyammal. The 3 rd

plaintiffs husband and defendants 4 and 5’s father namely Kartheeban and plaintiff
no 2, 4 and 5 have fild a vexation suit as against the father of the defendants Rayar
Naidu and against the 7th defendant and 9th defendant in which they stick on a
settlement deed dated 18.07.1968 and prayed the said court to declare that the sale
deed dated 05.02.1977 which was in respected of the suit property after the life
time of 2nd defendant is not valid. In the said suit the 2 nd defendant and his son 3rd
defendant have stood in the suit as 7th plaintiffs were called absent and set exparty
in the aforesaid old suit.
 ..4..

13. The plaintiff in OS.No. 312/1981 filed the suit with a prayer to declare
the sale deed as Null and Void and will not bind the defendant after the life fine of
the 2nd defendant. Therefore this decree in OS.No. 312/1981 would be enforceable
only after the life time of the 7th plaintiff Chakrapani.

14. In this suit the plaintiff’s set forth this prayer for recovery of
possession, but they have not pleaded in the plaint averments that or what date,
month and year this defendant Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property. For
recovery of possession, the plaintiff must prove that they, filed the suit within the
stipulated period in 12 years. It at all any mention of date, month and year was
found in the plaint averment, about the early in this suit property of the Rayar
Naidu it will incorporate the limitation and established that this limitation has been
saved. But the plaintiffs has not ==== any word in the plaint that on what date,
month and year, the Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property.

15. This defendant draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over the reliefs
sought for by the plaintiffs in the earlier suit number OS.No. 312/2981. The
necessity to for the sought relief of recovery of possession as a prayer ought not set
forth in the earlier suit where the relief was available very much at this time of
filing the earlier suit. But the relief sought for in the earlier suit only to declare the
sale deed as Null and Void and for permanent injunction alone. Hence with the
said prayer of recovery of possession the plaintiffs cannot file the present suit and
the suit is not maintainable.

16. The defendants humbly draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over
ORDER II – RULE 2 OF CPC

RULE 2 (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is
entitled to make in respect of the cause of action but a plaintiff may relinquish any
portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the Jurisdiction.

RULE 2 (2): Relinquishment of part of claim:- Where the plaintiff omits to sue
in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes any portion of claim, he shall not after
wards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

RULE 2 (3): Omission to sue for one of Several reliefs:- A person entitled to
more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of
 ..5..

such reliefs but he omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for all such
reliefs, he shall not after wards sue for any reliefs so omitted.

As such in this case, the plaintiffs in their earlier suit in OS.No. 312/1981
have not sought for any relief to sue for recovery of possession.

The plaintiffs who filed the present suit for same case of action have not
obtained any leave of this Hon’ble Court as stiputed in Order II Rule 2(3) of CPC
to sought for the afore said relief.

17. This defendants draw this Hon’ble Court’s kind attention over the
Exhibits marked by the Rayar Naidu – ex B8 - in OS,No. 312/81. The nursery
perusal of the said Ex-P8 shows that the defendants father Rayar Naidu initially
mortgaged the property in the year 1974. The said Rayar Naidu purchased the very
same property on the sheught of the sale deed with year 1977. As such the said
Rayar Naidu was in the possession of the property right from the year 1974, as a
mortagager. He become the absolute owner in the year 1977 by perchasay the
same on the story the of a registered sale deed. The plaintiffs filed the suit number
312/1981 in the year 1981. But there was no mention at what date, month and year
the said Rayar Naidu entered 15 to the suit property. The plaintiffs in the suit have
not sought for a relief of recovery of possession in the old suit in OS.No. 312/1981.
In the present suit also there is no ---- about on what date, month and year the said
Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property. As per their can did admission in the
plant itself, the Defendants and their father from 1977 are in possession and
enjoyment in the suit property.

18. It therefore prayer that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss
the suit with costs and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may
deems fit and proper under the circumstance of the case.

Advocate forth 1st defendant 1st denfendant

 ..6..

I he is defendant herein do hereby declare and state that the facts stated
above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I sing this verification at
Thiruvannamalai on 19.07.2021.

1st defendant

The written statement filed by the 1 st defendant is adopted by the other

Defendants.

Advocate for the Defendant.

 IN THE COURT THE DISTRICT JUDGE IF TIRUVANNAMALAI
IA.No. 41/2014 in OS.No. 16/2014

1. Mr. Murugan
2. Mr. S. Sasikumar
3. Mrs. C. Vasuki
4. Mrs. K. Bhavani
5. Mrs. K. Meenachi
6. Mr. K. Ram prasaath
7. Mr. M. Chakrapani
8. Mrs. C. Krishnaveni
9. Mr. C. Jayakumar …Petitioner/Plaintiffs

/Vs/

1. Mr. R. Krishnamorthi
2. Mr. R. Devendran
3. Mr. R. Sekar
4. Mr. R. Ravi (Died)
5. Mr. R. Gandhi
6. Mrs. R. Sarsvathi
7. Mr. R. Muralidharan
8. Mr. R. Skaylab Babu
9. Mr. R. Prabhu …Respondents/Defendants

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st RESPONDENT

01. The Petition filed by Petitioner for grant of temporary injunction

restraining the respondents their men, agents, servants, etc., from interfering with
the petitioner’s peaceful possession is false, frivolous, vexatious and is
unsustainable either in law or on facts and deserves to be dismissed in liminie.
 ..2..

02. This respondent does not admits any of the allegations contained in
the affidavit save those that are specifically admitted herein and puts the petitioner
to strict proof of each and every one of them.

03. The respondent vehemently denied the averments in this petition as

false vexations and invented and except those are speafically admitted by them rest
of the same has to be proved by the petitioners very strictly. Primafacie no case
has and suit is not maintains been made out upon the anvery perusal of the Petition
and for this aspect, the case of the petitioners is deserving to be dismasted at this
earlier stage.

02. The respondent averments in para no 3 of the petition that one Mrs.
Kanniammal executed a settlement deed and settled the properties in favour of the
petitioners 1 to 4 along with deceased Kartheepan and their father 7 th petitioners as
per the registered document dated at 18.07.1968 by creating the life interest in
favour of 7th petitioners Chakrapanni and subsequently infavour of grand son and
daughters are all absolutely as false vexations and invented and put the petitioners
to strict proof of the same.

03. The respondent vehemently denied the averments as false in para 3 of

the petition that since the properties sold to the present defendants father Rayar
Naidu by 7th petitioners namely Chakarapani udaiyar, the petitioners 1 to 4 along
with deceased Kartheeban the father of the petitioner 4 to 6 filed the suit OS.No.
31/2021 to declare that the sale deed executed by 7 th petitioner Chakarapani is not
binding and which was culminated in to a decree on 13.09.1993 and put the
petitioner to strict proof of the same.

04. It is true that the father of the respondents Rayar Naidu filed an appeal
in AS. No. 31 of 1994 before the subordinate judge of Tiruvannamalai which was
also dismissed on 28.03.1995.

05. It is true that again the un successful appellant Rayar Naidu filed
second appeal before the High Court of the judicature Madras, in SA.No 382 of
1996 and during the pendency of the appeal the appellant Rayar Naidu died and
present respondents in the suit have been brought on record as legal representatives
of the deceased appellant Rayar Naidu and the Honourable High Court of Madras
also dismissed the second appeal on 23.12.2011.
 ..3..

06. The respondents vehemently denied the averments in para 5 of the

petition that the petitioner right over the property have been declared by the court
from lower court to appellate court and the alleged sale deed in the name of present
respondent father Rayar Naidu was declared as null and void and the petitioner has
to prove the same.

07. The respondents denied the averment as absolutely false as that the
petitioner have got absolute right over the properties and they are entitled to take
possession of the properties after the life time of the estate holder sakarapani
udayar who is the 7 th petitioner here in. It is further false to state that since
the alleged sale infavour of deceased Rayar Naidu was declared as “Null and
Void” by judicial process the respondents have no right to the in possession of
property and the respondents are bound to surrender possession to the petitioners
and it’s false to state that the respondents possession has no legal sanction at all.

08. It is squarely false to state that the respondents who were put in to the
possession of the properties on the basis of invalid alienation have no right to be in
possession of the properties and then it is unwarranted to them to by asking
surrender back possession of the property the petitioners herein immediately and
this petitioners cannot claim a such right.

09. It is false to state that the petitioners on several times approached the
respondents to vacate and deliver actual physical possession of properties and it is
also false to state that the respondents have not come forward to surrender actual
physical possession of property and similarly they have no such right and they
cannot approach the respondents as such and the petitioner have no right to side the
suit before this Hon’ble Court for appropriate reliefs.

10. The petitioners wrongly valued the suit and they have burled the real
value of the property. The petitioner have not approached the Court with Klean
hands.

11. The prayer of the petitioner to directing this respondents to deliver the
actual physical possession of property here in immediately by vocative the suit
property is absolutely wrong and the respondents have not had any bound and duty
to comply the dements of petitioners.
 ..4..

The true facts are as follow:-

12. The suit property originally belongs to one Kanniyammal. The 3 rd

petitioners husband and respondents 4 and 5’s father namely Kartheeban and
petitioner no 2, 4 and 5 have fild a vexation suit as against the father of the
respondents Rayar Naidu and against the 7 th respondent and 9th respondent in
which they stick on a settlement deed dated 18.07.1968 and prayed the said court
to declare that the sale deed dated 05.02.1977 which was in respected of the suit
property after the life time of 2nd respondent is not valid. In the said suit the 2 nd
respondent and his son 3rd respondent have stood in the suit as 7 th petitioners were
called absent and set exparty in the aforesaid old suit.

13. The petitioner in OS.No. 312/1981 filed the suit with a prayer to
declare the sale deed as Null and Void and will not bind the respondent after the
life fine of the 2nd respondent. Therefore this decree in OS.No. 312/1981 would be
enforceable only after the life time of the 7th petitioner Chakrapani.

14. In this suit the petitioner’s set forth this prayer for recovery of
possession, but they have not pleaded in the petition averments that or what date,
month and year this respondent Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property. For
recovery of possession, the petitioner must prove that they, filed the suit within the
stipulated period in 12 years. It at all any mention of date, month and year was
found in the petition averment, about the early in this suit property of the Rayar
Naidu it will incorporate the limitation and established that this limitation has been
saved. But the petitioners has not ==== any word in the petition that on what date,
month and year, the Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property.

15. This respondent draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over the
reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the earlier suit number OS.No. 312/2981.
The necessity to for the sought relief of recovery of possession as a prayer ought
not set forth in the earlier suit where the relief was available very much at this time
of filing the earlier suit. But the relief sought for in the earlier suit only to declare
the sale deed as Null and Void and for permanent injunction alone. Hence with the
said prayer of recovery of possession the petitioners cannot file the present suit and
the suit is not maintainable.
 ..5..

16. The respondents humbly draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over
ORDER II – RULE 2 OF CPC

RULE 2 (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the petitioner is
entitled to make in respect of the cause of action but a petitioner may relinquish
any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the Jurisdiction.

RULE 2 (2): Relinquishment of part of claim:- Where the petitioner omits to

sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes any portion of claim, he shall not
after wards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

RULE 2 (3): Omission to sue for one of Several reliefs:- A person entitled to
more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of
such reliefs but he omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for all such
reliefs, he shall not after wards sue for any reliefs so omitted.

As such in this case, the petitioners in their earlier suit in OS.No. 312/1981
have not sought for any relief to sue for recovery of possession.

The petitioners who filed the present suit for same case of action have not
obtained any leave of this Hon’ble Court as stiputed in Order II Rule 2(3) of CPC
to sought for the afore said relief.

17. This respondents draw this Hon’ble Court’s kind attention over the
Exhibits marked by the Rayar Naidu – ex B8 - in OS,No. 312/81. The nursery
perusal of the said Ex-P8 shows that the respondents father Rayar Naidu initially
mortgaged the property in the year 1974. The said Rayar Naidu purchased the very
same property on the sheught of the sale deed with year 1977. As such the said
Rayar Naidu was in the possession of the property right from the year 1974, as a
mortagager. He become the absolute owner in the year 1977 by perchasay the
same on the story the of a registered sale deed. The petitioners filed the suit
number 312/1981 in the year 1981. But there was no mention at what date, month
and year the said Rayar Naidu entered 15 to the suit property. The petitioners in
the suit have not sought for a relief of recovery of possession in the old suit in
OS.No. 312/1981. In the present suit also there is no ---- about on what date,
month and year the said Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property. As per their
can did admission in the petition itself, the Respondents and their father from 1977
are in possession and enjoyment in the suit property.
 ..6..

18. The respondents submit that the petitioners herein filed the petition
only to give trouble and annoyance to respondents and further they filed the suit by
suppressing all the material facts. Further the petitioners have not come with clean
hands, there is no balance of convenience lies on the side of the petitioners but on
the contra if the petition is allowed and the injunction is granted to the respondents
will be put to irreparable loss and hardship which cannot be compensated by
money value.

19. Therefore viewed from any angle the present petition is devoid of
merits and bone fide and the same is deserves to be dismissed with costs.

20. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

dismiss the petition with costs and grant such other relief of relief’s as this Hon’ble
Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

Advocate for the 1st respondent 1st Respondent

I he is respondent herein do hereby declare and state that the facts stated
above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I sing this verification at
Thiruvannamalai on 19.07.2021

1st Respondent

The Counter filed by the 1st respondent is adopted by the other respondents.

Advocate for the Respondent.

 IN THE COURT THE DISTRICT JUDGE IF TIRUVANNAMALAI
IA.No. 42/2014 in OS.No. 16/2014

1. Mr. Murugan
2. Mr. S. Sasikumar
3. Mrs. C. Vasuki
4. Mrs. K. Bhavani
5. Mrs. K. Meenachi
6. Mr. K. Ram prasaath
7. Mr. M. Chakrapani
8. Mrs. C. Krishnaveni
9. Mr. C. Jayakumar …Petitioner/Plaintiffs

/Vs/

1. Mr. R. Krishnamorthi
2. Mr. R. Devendran
3. Mr. R. Sekar
4. Mr. R. Ravi (Died)
5. Mr. R. Gandhi
6. Mrs. R. Sarsvathi
7. Mr. R. Muralidharan
8. Mr. R. Skaylab Babu
9. Mr. R. Prabhu …Respondents/Defendants

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st RESPONDENT

01. The Petition filed by Petitioner for grant of temporary injunction

restraining the respondents their men, agents, servants, etc., from interfering with
the petitioner’s peaceful possession is false, frivolous, vexatious and is
unsustainable either in law or on facts and deserves to be dismissed in liminie.
 ..2..

02. This respondent does not admits any of the allegations contained in
the affidavit save those that are specifically admitted herein and puts the petitioner
to strict proof of each and every one of them.

03. The respondent vehemently denied the averments in this petition as

false vexations and invented and except those are speafically admitted by them rest
of the same has to be proved by the petitioners very strictly. Primafacie no case
has and suit is not maintains been made out upon the anvery perusal of the Petition
and for this aspect, the case of the petitioners is deserving to be dismasted at this
earlier stage.

02. The respondent averments in para no 3 of the petition that one Mrs.
Kanniammal executed a settlement deed and settled the properties in favour of the
petitioners 1 to 4 along with deceased Kartheepan and their father 7 th petitioners as
per the registered document dated at 18.07.1968 by creating the life interest in
favour of 7th petitioners Chakrapanni and subsequently infavour of grand son and
daughters are all absolutely as false vexations and invented and put the petitioners
to strict proof of the same.

03. The respondent vehemently denied the averments as false in para 3 of

the petition that since the properties sold to the present defendants father Rayar
Naidu by 7th petitioners namely Chakarapani udaiyar, the petitioners 1 to 4 along
with deceased Kartheeban the father of the petitioner 4 to 6 filed the suit OS.No.
31/2021 to declare that the sale deed executed by 7 th petitioner Chakarapani is not
binding and which was culminated in to a decree on 13.09.1993 and put the
petitioner to strict proof of the same.

04. It is true that the father of the respondents Rayar Naidu filed an appeal
in AS. No. 31 of 1994 before the subordinate judge of Tiruvannamalai which was
also dismissed on 28.03.1995.

05. It is true that again the un successful appellant Rayar Naidu filed
second appeal before the High Court of the judicature Madras, in SA.No 382 of
1996 and during the pendency of the appeal the appellant Rayar Naidu died and
present respondents in the suit have been brought on record as legal representatives
of the deceased appellant Rayar Naidu and the Honourable High Court of Madras
also dismissed the second appeal on 23.12.2011.
 ..3..

06. The respondents vehemently denied the averments in para 5 of the

petition that the petitioner right over the property have been declared by the court
from lower court to appellate court and the alleged sale deed in the name of present
respondent father Rayar Naidu was declared as null and void and the petitioner has
to prove the same.

07. The respondents denied the averment as absolutely false as that the
petitioner have got absolute right over the properties and they are entitled to take
possession of the properties after the life time of the estate holder sakarapani
udayar who is the 7 th petitioner here in. It is further false to state that since
the alleged sale infavour of deceased Rayar Naidu was declared as “Null and
Void” by judicial process the respondents have no right to the in possession of
property and the respondents are bound to surrender possession to the petitioners
and it’s false to state that the respondents possession has no legal sanction at all.

08. It is squarely false to state that the respondents who were put in to the
possession of the properties on the basis of invalid alienation have no right to be in
possession of the properties and then it is unwarranted to them to by asking
surrender back possession of the property the petitioners herein immediately and
this petitioners cannot claim a such right.

09. It is false to state that the petitioners on several times approached the
respondents to vacate and deliver actual physical possession of properties and it is
also false to state that the respondents have not come forward to surrender actual
physical possession of property and similarly they have no such right and they
cannot approach the respondents as such and the petitioner have no right to side the
suit before this Hon’ble Court for appropriate reliefs.

10. The petitioners wrongly valued the suit and they have burled the real
value of the property. The petitioner have not approached the Court with Klean
hands.

11. The prayer of the petitioner to directing this respondents to deliver the
actual physical possession of property here in immediately by vocative the suit
property is absolutely wrong and the respondents have not had any bound and duty
to comply the dements of petitioners.
 ..4..

The true facts are as follow:-

12. The suit property originally belongs to one Kanniyammal. The 3 rd

petitioners husband and respondents 4 and 5’s father namely Kartheeban and
petitioner no 2, 4 and 5 have fild a vexation suit as against the father of the
respondents Rayar Naidu and against the 7 th respondent and 9th respondent in
which they stick on a settlement deed dated 18.07.1968 and prayed the said court
to declare that the sale deed dated 05.02.1977 which was in respected of the suit
property after the life time of 2nd respondent is not valid. In the said suit the 2 nd
respondent and his son 3rd respondent have stood in the suit as 7 th petitioners were
called absent and set exparty in the aforesaid old suit.

13. The petitioner in OS.No. 312/1981 filed the suit with a prayer to
declare the sale deed as Null and Void and will not bind the respondent after the
life fine of the 2nd respondent. Therefore this decree in OS.No. 312/1981 would be
enforceable only after the life time of the 7th petitioner Chakrapani.

14. In this suit the petitioner’s set forth this prayer for recovery of
possession, but they have not pleaded in the petition averments that or what date,
month and year this respondent Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property. For
recovery of possession, the petitioner must prove that they, filed the suit within the
stipulated period in 12 years. It at all any mention of date, month and year was
found in the petition averment, about the early in this suit property of the Rayar
Naidu it will incorporate the limitation and established that this limitation has been
saved. But the petitioners has not ==== any word in the petition that on what date,
month and year, the Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property.

15. This respondent draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over the
reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the earlier suit number OS.No. 312/2981.
The necessity to for the sought relief of recovery of possession as a prayer ought
not set forth in the earlier suit where the relief was available very much at this time
of filing the earlier suit. But the relief sought for in the earlier suit only to declare
the sale deed as Null and Void and for permanent injunction alone. Hence with the
said prayer of recovery of possession the petitioners cannot file the present suit and
the suit is not maintainable.
 ..5..

16. The respondents humbly draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over
ORDER II – RULE 2 OF CPC

RULE 2 (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the petitioner is
entitled to make in respect of the cause of action but a petitioner may relinquish
any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the Jurisdiction.

RULE 2 (2): Relinquishment of part of claim:- Where the petitioner omits to

sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes any portion of claim, he shall not
after wards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

RULE 2 (3): Omission to sue for one of Several reliefs:- A person entitled to
more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of
such reliefs but he omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for all such
reliefs, he shall not after wards sue for any reliefs so omitted.

As such in this case, the petitioners in their earlier suit in OS.No. 312/1981
have not sought for any relief to sue for recovery of possession.

The petitioners who filed the present suit for same case of action have not
obtained any leave of this Hon’ble Court as stiputed in Order II Rule 2(3) of CPC
to sought for the afore said relief.

17. This respondents draw this Hon’ble Court’s kind attention over the
Exhibits marked by the Rayar Naidu – ex B8 - in OS,No. 312/81. The nursery
perusal of the said Ex-P8 shows that the respondents father Rayar Naidu initially
mortgaged the property in the year 1974. The said Rayar Naidu purchased the very
same property on the sheught of the sale deed with year 1977. As such the said
Rayar Naidu was in the possession of the property right from the year 1974, as a
mortagager. He become the absolute owner in the year 1977 by perchasay the
same on the story the of a registered sale deed. The petitioners filed the suit
number 312/1981 in the year 1981. But there was no mention at what date, month
and year the said Rayar Naidu entered 15 to the suit property. The petitioners in
the suit have not sought for a relief of recovery of possession in the old suit in
OS.No. 312/1981. In the present suit also there is no ---- about on what date,
month and year the said Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property. As per their
can did admission in the petition itself, the Respondents and their father from 1977
are in possession and enjoyment in the suit property.
 ..6..

18. The respondents submit that the petitioners herein filed the petition
only to give trouble and annoyance to respondents and further they filed the suit by
suppressing all the material facts. Further the petitioners have not come with clean
hands, there is no balance of convenience lies on the side of the petitioners but on
the contra if the petition is allowed and the injunction is granted to the respondents
will be put to irreparable loss and hardship which cannot be compensated by
money value.

19. Therefore viewed from any angle the present petition is devoid of
merits and bone fide and the same is deserves to be dismissed with costs.

20. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

dismiss the petition with costs and grant such other relief of relief’s as this Hon’ble
Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

Advocate for the 1st respondent 1st Respondent

I he is respondent herein do hereby declare and state that the facts stated
above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I sing this verification at
Thiruvannamalai on 19.07.2021

1st Respondent

The Counter filed by the 1st respondent is adopted by the other respondents.

Advocate for the Respondent.

 IN THE COURT THE DISTRICT JUDGE IF TIRUVANNAMALAI
IA.No. 43/2014 in OS.No. 16/2014

1. Mr. Murugan
2. Mr. S. Sasikumar
3. Mrs. C. Vasuki
4. Mrs. K. Bhavani
5. Mrs. K. Meenachi
6. Mr. K. Ram prasaath
7. Mr. M. Chakrapani
8. Mrs. C. Krishnaveni
9. Mr. C. Jayakumar …Petitioner/Plaintiffs

/Vs/

1. Mr. R. Krishnamorthi
2. Mr. R. Devendran
3. Mr. R. Sekar
4. Mr. R. Ravi (Died)
5. Mr. R. Gandhi
6. Mrs. R. Sarsvathi
7. Mr. R. Muralidharan
8. Mr. R. Skaylab Babu
9. Mr. R. Prabhu …Respondents/Defendants

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st RESPONDENT

01. The Petition filed by Petitioner for grant of temporary injunction

restraining the respondents their men, agents, servants, etc., from interfering with
the petitioner’s peaceful possession is false, frivolous, vexatious and is
unsustainable either in law or on facts and deserves to be dismissed in liminie.
 ..2..

02. This respondent does not admits any of the allegations contained in
the affidavit save those that are specifically admitted herein and puts the petitioner
to strict proof of each and every one of them.

03. The respondent vehemently denied the averments in this petition as

false vexations and invented and except those are speafically admitted by them rest
of the same has to be proved by the petitioners very strictly. Primafacie no case
has and suit is not maintains been made out upon the anvery perusal of the Petition
and for this aspect, the case of the petitioners is deserving to be dismasted at this
earlier stage.

02. The respondent averments in para no 3 of the petition that one Mrs.
Kanniammal executed a settlement deed and settled the properties in favour of the
petitioners 1 to 4 along with deceased Kartheepan and their father 7 th petitioners as
per the registered document dated at 18.07.1968 by creating the life interest in
favour of 7th petitioners Chakrapanni and subsequently infavour of grand son and
daughters are all absolutely as false vexations and invented and put the petitioners
to strict proof of the same.

03. The respondent vehemently denied the averments as false in para 3 of

the petition that since the properties sold to the present defendants father Rayar
Naidu by 7th petitioners namely Chakarapani udaiyar, the petitioners 1 to 4 along
with deceased Kartheeban the father of the petitioner 4 to 6 filed the suit OS.No.
31/2021 to declare that the sale deed executed by 7 th petitioner Chakarapani is not
binding and which was culminated in to a decree on 13.09.1993 and put the
petitioner to strict proof of the same.

04. It is true that the father of the respondents Rayar Naidu filed an appeal
in AS. No. 31 of 1994 before the subordinate judge of Tiruvannamalai which was
also dismissed on 28.03.1995.

05. It is true that again the un successful appellant Rayar Naidu filed
second appeal before the High Court of the judicature Madras, in SA.No 382 of
1996 and during the pendency of the appeal the appellant Rayar Naidu died and
present respondents in the suit have been brought on record as legal representatives
of the deceased appellant Rayar Naidu and the Honourable High Court of Madras
also dismissed the second appeal on 23.12.2011.
 ..3..

06. The respondents vehemently denied the averments in para 5 of the

petition that the petitioner right over the property have been declared by the court
from lower court to appellate court and the alleged sale deed in the name of present
respondent father Rayar Naidu was declared as null and void and the petitioner has
to prove the same.

07. The respondents denied the averment as absolutely false as that the
petitioner have got absolute right over the properties and they are entitled to take
possession of the properties after the life time of the estate holder sakarapani
udayar who is the 7 th petitioner here in. It is further false to state that since
the alleged sale infavour of deceased Rayar Naidu was declared as “Null and
Void” by judicial process the respondents have no right to the in possession of
property and the respondents are bound to surrender possession to the petitioners
and it’s false to state that the respondents possession has no legal sanction at all.

08. It is squarely false to state that the respondents who were put in to the
possession of the properties on the basis of invalid alienation have no right to be in
possession of the properties and then it is unwarranted to them to by asking
surrender back possession of the property the petitioners herein immediately and
this petitioners cannot claim a such right.

09. It is false to state that the petitioners on several times approached the
respondents to vacate and deliver actual physical possession of properties and it is
also false to state that the respondents have not come forward to surrender actual
physical possession of property and similarly they have no such right and they
cannot approach the respondents as such and the petitioner have no right to side the
suit before this Hon’ble Court for appropriate reliefs.

10. The petitioners wrongly valued the suit and they have burled the real
value of the property. The petitioner have not approached the Court with Klean
hands.

11. The prayer of the petitioner to directing this respondents to deliver the
actual physical possession of property here in immediately by vocative the suit
property is absolutely wrong and the respondents have not had any bound and duty
to comply the dements of petitioners.
 ..4..

The true facts are as follow:-

12. The suit property originally belongs to one Kanniyammal. The 3 rd

petitioners husband and respondents 4 and 5’s father namely Kartheeban and
petitioner no 2, 4 and 5 have fild a vexation suit as against the father of the
respondents Rayar Naidu and against the 7 th respondent and 9th respondent in
which they stick on a settlement deed dated 18.07.1968 and prayed the said court
to declare that the sale deed dated 05.02.1977 which was in respected of the suit
property after the life time of 2nd respondent is not valid. In the said suit the 2 nd
respondent and his son 3rd respondent have stood in the suit as 7 th petitioners were
called absent and set exparty in the aforesaid old suit.

13. The petitioner in OS.No. 312/1981 filed the suit with a prayer to
declare the sale deed as Null and Void and will not bind the respondent after the
life fine of the 2nd respondent. Therefore this decree in OS.No. 312/1981 would be
enforceable only after the life time of the 7th petitioner Chakrapani.

14. In this suit the petitioner’s set forth this prayer for recovery of
possession, but they have not pleaded in the petition averments that or what date,
month and year this respondent Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property. For
recovery of possession, the petitioner must prove that they, filed the suit within the
stipulated period in 12 years. It at all any mention of date, month and year was
found in the petition averment, about the early in this suit property of the Rayar
Naidu it will incorporate the limitation and established that this limitation has been
saved. But the petitioners has not ==== any word in the petition that on what date,
month and year, the Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property.

15. This respondent draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over the
reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the earlier suit number OS.No. 312/2981.
The necessity to for the sought relief of recovery of possession as a prayer ought
not set forth in the earlier suit where the relief was available very much at this time
of filing the earlier suit. But the relief sought for in the earlier suit only to declare
the sale deed as Null and Void and for permanent injunction alone. Hence with the
said prayer of recovery of possession the petitioners cannot file the present suit and
the suit is not maintainable.
 ..5..

16. The respondents humbly draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over
ORDER II – RULE 2 OF CPC

RULE 2 (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the petitioner is
entitled to make in respect of the cause of action but a petitioner may relinquish
any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the Jurisdiction.

RULE 2 (2): Relinquishment of part of claim:- Where the petitioner omits to

sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes any portion of claim, he shall not
after wards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

RULE 2 (3): Omission to sue for one of Several reliefs:- A person entitled to
more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of
such reliefs but he omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for all such
reliefs, he shall not after wards sue for any reliefs so omitted.

As such in this case, the petitioners in their earlier suit in OS.No. 312/1981
have not sought for any relief to sue for recovery of possession.

The petitioners who filed the present suit for same case of action have not
obtained any leave of this Hon’ble Court as stiputed in Order II Rule 2(3) of CPC
to sought for the afore said relief.

17. This respondents draw this Hon’ble Court’s kind attention over the
Exhibits marked by the Rayar Naidu – ex B8 - in OS,No. 312/81. The nursery
perusal of the said Ex-P8 shows that the respondents father Rayar Naidu initially
mortgaged the property in the year 1974. The said Rayar Naidu purchased the very
same property on the sheught of the sale deed with year 1977. As such the said
Rayar Naidu was in the possession of the property right from the year 1974, as a
mortagager. He become the absolute owner in the year 1977 by perchasay the
same on the story the of a registered sale deed. The petitioners filed the suit
number 312/1981 in the year 1981. But there was no mention at what date, month
and year the said Rayar Naidu entered 15 to the suit property. The petitioners in
the suit have not sought for a relief of recovery of possession in the old suit in
OS.No. 312/1981. In the present suit also there is no ---- about on what date,
month and year the said Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property. As per their
can did admission in the petition itself, the Respondents and their father from 1977
are in possession and enjoyment in the suit property.
 ..6..

18. The respondents submit that the petitioners herein filed the petition
only to give trouble and annoyance to respondents and further they filed the suit by
suppressing all the material facts. Further the petitioners have not come with clean
hands, there is no balance of convenience lies on the side of the petitioners but on
the contra if the petition is allowed and the injunction is granted to the respondents
will be put to irreparable loss and hardship which cannot be compensated by
money value.

19. Therefore viewed from any angle the present petition is devoid of
merits and bone fide and the same is deserves to be dismissed with costs.

20. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

dismiss the petition with costs and grant such other relief of relief’s as this Hon’ble
Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

Advocate for the 1st respondent 1st Respondent

I he is respondent herein do hereby declare and state that the facts stated
above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I sing this verification at
Thiruvannamalai on 19.07.2021

1st Respondent

The Counter filed by the 1st respondent is adopted by the other respondents.

Advocate for the Respondent.

 IN THE COURT THE DISTRICT JUDGE IF TIRUVANNAMALAI
OS.No. 16/2014

1. Mr. Murugan
2. Mr. S. Sasikumar
3. Mrs. C. Vasuki
4. Mrs. K. Bhavani
5. Mrs. K. Meenachi
6. Mr. K. Ram prasaath
7. Mr. M. Chakrapani
8. Mrs. C. Krishnaveni
9. Mr. C. Jayakumar …Plaintiffs

/Vs/

1. Mr. R. Krishnamorthi
2. Mr. R. Devendran
3. Mr. R. Sekar
4. Mr. R. Ravi (Died)
5. Mr. R. Gandhi
6. Mrs. R. Sarsvathi
7. Mr. R. Muralidharan
8. Mr. R. Skaylab Babu
9. Mr. R. Prabhu …Defendants

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st DEFENDANT

UNDER ORDER 8 RULE 1 AND SEC 151 OF CPC

01. The defendants vehemently denied the averments in this plaint as false
and vexatious and invented and except those are specifically admitted by them rest
of the same has to be proved by the plaintiffs very strictly. Primafacie no case has
been made out as against this defendants and the suit is not maintainable. The
plaint filed will not substantiate either on law or on facts.
 ..2..

02. The defendants averments in para no 3 of the plaint that one Mrs.
Kanniammal executed a settlement deed and settled the properties in favour of the
plaintiffs 1 to 4 along with deceased Kartheepan and their father 7 th plaintiff as per
the registered document dated at 18.07.1968 by creating the life interest in favour
of 7th plaintiff Chakrapani and subsequently infavour of grand son and daughters
are all absolutely false, vexatious and invented and put the plaintiffs to strict proof
of the same.

03. The defendants vehemently denied the averments as false in para 3 of

the plaint that since the properties sold to the present defendants father Rayar
Naidu by 7th plaintiff namely Chakarapani udaiyar, the plaintiffs 1 to 4 along with
deceased Kartheeban the father of the plaintiff 4 to 6 filed the suit OS.No. 31/1978
to declare that the sale deed executed by 7 th plaintiff Chakarapani is not binding
and which was culminated in to a decree on 13.09.1993 and put the plaintiff to
strict proof of the same.

04. It is true that the father of the defendants Rayar Naidu filed an appeal
in AS. No. 31 of 1994 before the subordinate judge of Tiruvannamalai which was
also dismissed on 28.03.1995.

05. It is true that again the un successful appellant Rayar Naidu filed
second appeal before the High Court of the judicature Madras, in SA.No 382 of
1996 and during the pendency of the appeal the appellant Rayar Naidu died and
present defendants in the suit have been brought on record as legal representatives
of the deceased appellant Rayar Naidu and the Honourable High Court of Madras
also dismissed the second appeal on 23.12.2011.

06. The defendants vehemently denied the averments in para 5 of the

plaint that the plaintiffs right over the property have been declared by the court
from lower court to appellate court and the alleged sale deed in the name of present
defendant father Rayar Naidu was declared as null and void and the plaintiff has to
prove the same.

07. The defendants denied the averment as absolutely false as that the
plaintiff have got absolute right over the properties and they are entitled to take
possession of the properties after the lise time of the estate holder chakrapani
udayar who is the 7th plaintiff here in. It is further false to state that since the
 ..3..

alleged sale infavour of deceased Rayar Naidu was declared as “Null and Void”
by judicial process the defendants have no right to the in possession of property
and the defendants are bound to surrender possession to the plaintiffs and it’s false
to state that the defendants possession has no legal sanction at all.

08. It is squarely false to state that the defendants who were put in to the
possession of the properties on the basis of invalid alienation have no right to be in
possession of the properties. It is unwarranted to them by asking surrender back
possession of the property to the plaintiffs herein immediately and this plaintiffs
cannot claim a such right, Since they never raised it before the triad court in
OS.No.312/1981.

09. It is false to state that the plaintiffs on several times approached the
defendants to vacate and deliver actual physical possession of properties and it is
also false to state that the defendants have not come forward to surrender actual
physical possession of property. They have no such right and they cannot
approach the defendants as such and the plaintiffs have no right to file the suit
before this Hon’ble Court for appropriate reliefs.

10. The plaintiffs wrongly valued the suit and they have burked the real
value of the property. The plaintiff have not approached the Court with clean
hands.

11. The defendants have obtained leave of the Honble supreme court of
India in SLP.NO and the same is pending before the supreme
court.

12. The prayer of the plaintiff to directing this defendants to deliver the
actual physical possession of property here in immediately by vaccating the suit
property is absolutely wrong and the defendants have not had any bound and duty
to comply the demands of the plaintiffs.

The true facts are as follow:-

12. The suit property originally belongs to one Kanniyammal. The 3 rd

plaintiffs husband and defendants 4 and 5’s father namely Kartheeban and plaintiff
no 2, 4 and 5 have filed a vexatious suit as against the father of the defendants
Rayar Naidu and against the 7th defendant and 9th defendant in OS.No. 312/1981 in
 ..4..

which they stick on a settlement deed dated 18.07.1968 and prayed the said court
to declare that the sale deed dated 05.02.1977 which was in respect of the suit
property after the life time of 2 nd defendant is not valid. In the said suit in OS.No.
312/1978 the 2nd defendant and his son 3rd defendant now stood in this suit as 7 th
plaintiffs and 9th plaintiff were called absent and set exparty in the aforesaid old
suit. They both never defend the said suit and remain Exparty.

13. The plaintiff in OS.No. 312/1981 filed the suit with a prayer to declare
the sale deed as Null and Void and will not bind the defendant after the life time of
the 2nd defendant. Therefore the decree in OS.No. 312/1981 would be enforceable
only after the life time of the 7th plaintiff Chakrapani.

14. In the present suit the plaintiff’s set forth the prayer for recovery of
possession of the suit properties, but they have not pleaded the erucial aspect in the
plaint averments that on what date, which month and year this defendant Rayar
Naidu entered into the suit property. For recovery of possession, the plaintiff must
prove that they, filed the suit within the stipulated period in 12 years. It at all any
mention of date, month and year was found in the plaint averment, about the entry
in the suit property of the Rayar Naidu it will incorporate the limitation and
established that this limitation has been saved. But the plaintiffs has not whispered
any word in the plaint that on what date, month and year, the Rayar Naidu entered
into the suit property.

15. This defendant draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over the reliefs
sought for by the plaintiffs in the earlier suit number OS.No. 312/2981. They
sought relief of recovery of possession as a prayer, ought not set forth in the earlier
suit where the relief was available very much at the time of filing the earlier suit.
But the relief sought for in the earlier suit only to declare the sale deed as Null and
Void and for permanent injunction alone. Hence with the said prayer of recovery
of possession the plaintiffs cannot file the present suit and the suit is not
maintainable.

16. The defendants humbly draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over
 ..5..

ORDER II – RULE 2 OF CPC

RULE 2 (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is
entitled to make in respect of the cause of action but a plaintiff may relinquish any
portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the Jurisdiction.

RULE 2 (2): Relinquishment of part of claim:- Where the plaintiff omits to sue
in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes any portion of claim, he shall not after
wards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

RULE 2 (3): Omission to sue for one of Several reliefs:- A person entitled to
more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of
such reliefs but he omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for all such
reliefs, he shall not after wards sue for any reliefs so omitted.

As such in this case, the plaintiffs in their earlier suit in OS.No. 312/1981
have not sought for any relief to sue for recovery of possession.

The plaintiffs who filed the present suit for same cause of action have not
obtained any leave of this Hon’ble Court as stiputed in Order II Rule 2(3) of CPC
to sought for the afore said relief.

17. This defendants draw this Hon’ble Court’s kind attention over the
Exhibits marked by the Rayar Naidu – Ex B8 - in OS,No. 312/81. The currery
perusal of the said Ex-P8 shows that the defendants father Rayar Naidu initially
mortgaged the property in the year 1974. The said Rayar Naidu purchased the very
same property on the strength of the sale deed in the year 1977. As such the said
Rayar Naidu was in the possession of the property right from the year 1974, as a
mortagager. He become the absolute owner in the year 1977 by purchasing the
same on the strength of a registered sale deed. The plaintiffs filed the suit OS.No
312/1981 in the year 1981. But there was no mention on what date, month and
year the said Rayar Naidu has entered in to the suit property. The plaintiffs in the
suit have not sought for a relief of recovery of possession in the old suit in OS.No.
312/1981. In the present suit also there is no mention about on what date, month
and year the said Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property. As per their candid
admission in the plaint itself, the Defendants and their father from 1977 were in
possession and enjoyment in the suit property. But the Exhibit P8 discloses Rayar
Naidu’s entry even in the year 1974 as a mortgater. The defendants reserve their
 ..6..

right to file additroval written statement in future if at all they plest out and fourd
any of the facts.

18. It therefore prayer that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss
the suit with the exemplary cost of this defendants and grant such other relief or
reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstance of
the case.

Advocate for the Defendants 1st denfendant

Verification

I Krishnamorthy ist defendant here by declares and states that the facts state
above are absolutety true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I sign this
verification at Thiruvannamalai on 27.07.2021.

1st defendant

The written statement filed by the 1 st defendant is adopted by the other

Defendants.

Advocate for the Defendant.

IN THE COURT THE DISTRICT JUDGE IF TIRUVANNAMALAI

 IA.No. 41/2014 in OS.No. 16/2014

1. Mr. Murugan
2. Mr. S. Sasikumar
3. Mrs. C. Vasuki
4. Mrs. K. Bhavani
5. Mrs. K. Meenachi
6. Mr. K. Ram prasaath
7. Mr. M. Chakrapani
8. Mrs. C. Krishnaveni
9. Mr. C. Jayakumar …Petitioner/Plaintiffs

/Vs/

1. Mr. R. Krishnamorthi
2. Mr. R. Devendran
3. Mr. R. Sekar
4. Mr. R. Ravi (Died)
5. Mr. R. Gandhi
6. Mrs. R. Sarsvathi
7. Mr. R. Muralidharan
8. Mr. R. Skaylab Babu
9. Mr. R. Prabhu …Respondents/Defendants

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st RESPONDENT

01. The Petition filed by Petitioner for grant of temporary injunction

restraining the respondents their men, agents, servants, etc., from interfering with
the petitioner’s peaceful possession is false, frivolous, vexatious and is
unsustainable either in law or on facts and deserves to be dismissed in liminie.

..2..
 02. This respondent does not admits any of the allegations contained in
the affidavit save those that are specifically admitted herein and puts the petitioner
to strict proof of each and every one of them.

03. The respondent vehemently denied the averments in this petition as

false and vexatious and invented and except those are specifically admitted by
them rest of the same has to be proved by the petitioners very strictly. Primafacie
no case has been made out as against this respondents and the suit is not
maintainable. The petition filed will not substantiate either on law or on facts.
04. This respondent denied the averments in para no 3 of the petition that
one Mrs. Kanniammal executed a settlement deed and settled the properties in
favour of the petitioners 1 to 4 along with deceased Kartheepan and their father 7 th
petitioners as per the registered document dated at 18.07.1968 by creating the life
interest in favour of 7th petitioners Chakrapani and subsequently infavour of grand
son and daughters are all absolutely false, vexatious and invented and put the
petitioners to strict proof of the same.

05. The respondent vehemently denied the averments stated in para 3 of

the petition as false that since the properties sold to the present defendants father
Rayar Naidu by 7th petitioners namely Chakarapani udaiyar, the petitioners 1 to 4
along with deceased Kartheeban the father of the petitioner 4 to 6 filed the suit
OS.No. 31/1978 to declare that the sale deed executed by 7 th petitioner
Chakarapani is not binding and which was culminated in to a decree on 13.09.1993
and put the petitioner to strict proof of the same.

06. It is true that the father of the respondents Rayar Naidu filed an appeal
in AS. No. 31 of 1994 before the subordinate judge of Tiruvannamalai which was
also dismissed on 28.03.1995.

07. It is true that again the un successful appellant Rayar Naidu filed
second appeal before the High Court of the judicature Madras, in SA.No 382 of
1996 and during the pendency of the appeal the appellant Rayar Naidu died and
present respondents in the suit have been brought on record as legal representatives
of the deceased appellant Rayar Naidu and the Honourable High Court of Madras
also dismissed the second appeal on 23.12.2011.

..3..
 08. The respondents vehemently denied the averments in para 5 of the
petition that the petitioners right over the property have been declared by the court
from lower court to appellate court and the alleged sale deed in the name of present
respondent father Rayar Naidu was declared as null and void and the petitioner has
to prove the same.

09. The respondents denied the averment as absolutely false as that the
petitioner have got absolute right over the properties and they are entitled to take
possession of the properties after the lise time of the estate holder chakrapani
udayar who is the 7 th petitioner here in. It is further false to state that since
the alleged sale infavour of deceased Rayar Naidu was declared as “Null and
Void” by judicial process the respondents have no right to the in possession of
property and the respondents are bound to surrender possession to the petitioners
and it’s false to state that the respondents possession has no legal sanction at all.

10. It is squarely false to state that the respondents who were put in to the
possession of the properties on the basis of invalid alienation have no right to be in
possession of the properties. It is unwarranted to them by asking surrender back
possession of the property to the petitioners herein immediately and this petitioners
cannot claim a such right,Since they never raised it before the trial court in OS.No.
312/1981.

11. It is false to state that the petitioners on several times approached the
respondents to vacate and deliver actual physical possession of properties and it is
also false to state that the respondents have not come forward to surrender actual
physical possession of property. They have no such right and they cannot
approach the respondents as such and the petitioners have no right to file the suit
before this Hon’ble Court for appropriate reliefs.

12. The petitioners burked the real facts and the petitioners have not
approached the Court with clean hands.

13. The respondents have obtained leave of the Honble supreme court of
India in SLP.No and the same is pending before the supreme
court.

14. The prayer of the petitioner to directing this respondents to deliver the
actual physical possession of property here in immediately by vaccating the suit

..4..
property is absolutely wrong and the respondents have not had any bound and duty
to comply the demands of the petitioners.

The true facts are as follow:-

15. The suit property originally belongs to one Kanniyammal. The 3 rd

petitioners husband and respondents 4 and 5’s father namely Kartheeban and
petitioner no 2, 4 and 5 have filed a vexatious suit as against the father of the
respondents Rayar Naidu and against the 7 th respondent and 9th respondent in
OS.No. 312/1987 in which they stick on a settlement deed dated 18.07.1968 and
prayed the said court to declare that the sale deed dated 05.02.1977 which was in
respect of the suit property after the life time of 2 nd respondent is not valid. In the
said suit in OS.No. 312/1978 the 2nd respondent and his son 3rd respondent now
stood in this suit as 7th petitioners were called absent and set exparty in the
aforesaid old suit. They both never respond the said suit and remain Exparty.

13. The petitioner in OS.No. 312/1981 filed the suit with a prayer to
declare the sale deed as Null and Void and will not bind the respondent after the
life time of the 2nd respondent. Therefore the decree in OS.No. 312/1981 would be
enforceable only after the life time of the 7th petitioner Chakrapani.

14. In the present suit the petitioner’s set forth the prayer for recovery of
possession of the suit properties, but they have not pleaded the erucial aspect in the
petition averments that on what date, which month and year this respondent Rayar
Naidu entered into the suit property. For recovery of possession, the petitioner
must prove that they, filed the suit within the stipulated period in 12 years. It at all
any mention of date, month and year was found in the petition averment, about the
entry in the suit property of the Rayar Naidu it will incorporate the limitation and
established that this limitation has been saved. But the petitioners has not
whispered any word in the petition that on what date, month and year, the Rayar
Naidu entered into the suit property.

15. This respondent draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over the
reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the earlier suit number OS.No. 312/2981.
They sought relief of recovery of possession as a prayer ought not set forth in the
earlier suit where the relief was available very much at this time of filing the earlier
suit. But the relief sought for in the earlier suit only to declare the sale deed as

..5..
Null and Void and for permanent injunction alone. Hence with the said prayer of
recovery of possession the petitioners cannot file the present suit and the suit is not
maintainable.

16. The respondents humbly draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over
ORDER II – RULE 2 OF CPC

RULE 2 (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the petitioner is
entitled to make in respect of the cause of action but a petitioner may relinquish
any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the Jurisdiction.

RULE 2 (2): Relinquishment of part of claim:- Where the petitioner omits to

sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes any portion of claim, he shall not
after wards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

RULE 2 (3): Omission to sue for one of Several reliefs:- A person entitled to
more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of
such reliefs but he omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for all such
reliefs, he shall not after wards sue for any reliefs so omitted.

As such in this case, the petitioners in their earlier suit in OS.No. 312/1981
have not sought for any relief to sue for recovery of possession.

The petitioners who filed the present suit for same cause of action have not
obtained any leave of this Hon’ble Court as stiputed in Order II Rule 2(3) of CPC
to sought for the afore said relief.

17. This respondents draw this Hon’ble Court’s kind attention over the
Exhibits marked by the Rayar Naidu – Ex B8 - in OS,No. 312/81. The cursery
perusal of the said Ex-P8 shows that the respondents father Rayar Naidu initially
mortgaged the property in the year 1974. The said Rayar Naidu purchased the very
same property on the strength of the sale deed in the year 1977. As such the said
Rayar Naidu was in the possession of the property right from the year 1974, as a
mortagager. He become the absolute owner in the year 1977 by purchasing the
same on the strength of a registered sale deed. The petitioners filed the suit
OS.No. 312/1981 in the year 1981. But there was no mention on what date, month
and year the said Rayar Naidu has entered in to the suit property. The petitioners
in the suit have not sought for a relief of recovery of possession in the old suit in

..6..
OS.No. 312/1981. In the present suit also there is no mention about on what date,
month and year the said Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property. As per their
candid admission in the petition itself, the Respondents and their father from 1977
were in possession and enjoyment in the suit property. But the Exhibit P8
discloses Rayar Naidu’s entry even in the year 1974 as a mortgage. The
respondants reserve their right to file additroval written statement in future if at all
they lest out and fourd any of the facts.

18. The respondents submit that the petitioners herein filed the petition
only to give trouble and annoyance to respondents and further they filed the suit by
suppressing all the material facts. Further the petitioners have not come with clean
hands, there is no balance of convenience lies on the side of the petitioners but on
the contra if the petition is allowed and the injunction is granted to the petitions as
prayed, the respondants will be put to irreparable loss and hardship which cannot
be compensated by money value.

19. Therefore viewed from any angle the present petition is devoid of
merits and bone fide and the same is deserves to be dismissed with costs.

20. It therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss
the petition with the exemptory cost of this respondents and grant such other relief
of relief’s as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances
of the case.

Advocate for the 1st respondent 1st Respondent

Verification

I Krishnamoorthy ist respondent here by declare and states that the facts
stated above are absolutety true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I sing
this verification at Thiruvannamalai on 27.07.2021

1st Respondent

The Counter filed by the 1st respondent is adopted by the other respondents.

Advocate for the Respondent.

IN THE COURT THE DISTRICT JUDGE IF TIRUVANNAMALAI

 IA.No. 42/2014 in OS.No. 16/2014

1. Mr. Murugan
2. Mr. S. Sasikumar
3. Mrs. C. Vasuki
4. Mrs. K. Bhavani
5. Mrs. K. Meenachi
6. Mr. K. Ram prasaath
7. Mr. M. Chakrapani
8. Mrs. C. Krishnaveni
9. Mr. C. Jayakumar …Petitioner/Plaintiffs

/Vs/

1. Mr. R. Krishnamorthi
2. Mr. R. Devendran
3. Mr. R. Sekar
4. Mr. R. Ravi (Died)
5. Mr. R. Gandhi
6. Mrs. R. Sarsvathi
7. Mr. R. Muralidharan
8. Mr. R. Skaylab Babu
9. Mr. R. Prabhu …Respondents/Defendants

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st RESPONDENT

01. The Petition filed by Petitioner for grant of temporary injunction

restraining the respondents their men, agents, servants, etc., from interfering with
the petitioner’s peaceful possession is false, frivolous, vexatious and is
unsustainable either in law or on facts and deserves to be dismissed in liminie.

..2..
 02. This respondent does not admits any of the allegations contained in
the affidavit save those that are specifically admitted herein and puts the petitioner
to strict proof of each and every one of them.

03. The respondent vehemently denied the averments in this petition as

false and vexatious and invented and except those are specifically admitted by
them rest of the same has to be proved by the petitioners very strictly. Primafacie
no case has been made out as against this respondents and the suit is not
maintainable. The petition filed will not substantiate either on law or on facts.
04. This respondent denied the averments in para no 3 of the petition that
one Mrs. Kanniammal executed a settlement deed and settled the properties in
favour of the petitioners 1 to 4 along with deceased Kartheepan and their father 7 th
petitioners as per the registered document dated at 18.07.1968 by creating the life
interest in favour of 7th petitioners Chakrapani and subsequently infavour of grand
son and daughters are all absolutely false, vexatious and invented and put the
petitioners to strict proof of the same.

05. The respondent vehemently denied the averments stated in para 3 of

the petition as false that since the properties sold to the present defendants father
Rayar Naidu by 7th petitioners namely Chakarapani udaiyar, the petitioners 1 to 4
along with deceased Kartheeban the father of the petitioner 4 to 6 filed the suit
OS.No. 31/1978 to declare that the sale deed executed by 7 th petitioner
Chakarapani is not binding and which was culminated in to a decree on 13.09.1993
and put the petitioner to strict proof of the same.

06. It is true that the father of the respondents Rayar Naidu filed an appeal
in AS. No. 31 of 1994 before the subordinate judge of Tiruvannamalai which was
also dismissed on 28.03.1995.

07. It is true that again the un successful appellant Rayar Naidu filed
second appeal before the High Court of the judicature Madras, in SA.No 382 of
1996 and during the pendency of the appeal the appellant Rayar Naidu died and
present respondents in the suit have been brought on record as legal representatives
of the deceased appellant Rayar Naidu and the Honourable High Court of Madras
also dismissed the second appeal on 23.12.2011.

..3..
 08. The respondents vehemently denied the averments in para 5 of the
petition that the petitioners right over the property have been declared by the court
from lower court to appellate court and the alleged sale deed in the name of present
respondent father Rayar Naidu was declared as null and void and the petitioner has
to prove the same.

09. The respondents denied the averment as absolutely false as that the
petitioner have got absolute right over the properties and they are entitled to take
possession of the properties after the lise time of the estate holder chakrapani
udayar who is the 7 th petitioner here in. It is further false to state that since
the alleged sale infavour of deceased Rayar Naidu was declared as “Null and
Void” by judicial process the respondents have no right to the in possession of
property and the respondents are bound to surrender possession to the petitioners
and it’s false to state that the respondents possession has no legal sanction at all.

10. It is squarely false to state that the respondents who were put in to the
possession of the properties on the basis of invalid alienation have no right to be in
possession of the properties. It is unwarranted to them by asking surrender back
possession of the property to the petitioners herein immediately and this petitioners
cannot claim a such right,Since they never raised it before the trial court in OS.No.
312/1981.

11. It is false to state that the petitioners on several times approached the
respondents to vacate and deliver actual physical possession of properties and it is
also false to state that the respondents have not come forward to surrender actual
physical possession of property. They have no such right and they cannot
approach the respondents as such and the petitioners have no right to file the suit
before this Hon’ble Court for appropriate reliefs.

12. The petitioners burked the real facts and the petitioners have not
approached the Court with clean hands.

13. The respondents have obtained leave of the Honble supreme court of
India in SLP.No and the same is pending before the supreme
court.

14. The prayer of the petitioner to directing this respondents to deliver the
actual physical possession of property here in immediately by vaccating the suit

..4..
property is absolutely wrong and the respondents have not had any bound and duty
to comply the demands of the petitioners.

The true facts are as follow:-

15. The suit property originally belongs to one Kanniyammal. The 3 rd

petitioners husband and respondents 4 and 5’s father namely Kartheeban and
petitioner no 2, 4 and 5 have filed a vexatious suit as against the father of the
respondents Rayar Naidu and against the 7 th respondent and 9th respondent in
OS.No. 312/1987 in which they stick on a settlement deed dated 18.07.1968 and
prayed the said court to declare that the sale deed dated 05.02.1977 which was in
respect of the suit property after the life time of 2 nd respondent is not valid. In the
said suit in OS.No. 312/1978 the 2nd respondent and his son 3rd respondent now
stood in this suit as 7th petitioners were called absent and set exparty in the
aforesaid old suit. They both never respond the said suit and remain Exparty.

13. The petitioner in OS.No. 312/1981 filed the suit with a prayer to
declare the sale deed as Null and Void and will not bind the respondent after the
life time of the 2nd respondent. Therefore the decree in OS.No. 312/1981 would be
enforceable only after the life time of the 7th petitioner Chakrapani.

14. In the present suit the petitioner’s set forth the prayer for recovery of
possession of the suit properties, but they have not pleaded the erucial aspect in the
petition averments that on what date, which month and year this respondent Rayar
Naidu entered into the suit property. For recovery of possession, the petitioner
must prove that they, filed the suit within the stipulated period in 12 years. It at all
any mention of date, month and year was found in the petition averment, about the
entry in the suit property of the Rayar Naidu it will incorporate the limitation and
established that this limitation has been saved. But the petitioners has not
whispered any word in the petition that on what date, month and year, the Rayar
Naidu entered into the suit property.

15. This respondent draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over the
reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the earlier suit number OS.No. 312/2981.
They sought relief of recovery of possession as a prayer ought not set forth in the
earlier suit where the relief was available very much at this time of filing the earlier
suit. But the relief sought for in the earlier suit only to declare the sale deed as

..5..
Null and Void and for permanent injunction alone. Hence with the said prayer of
recovery of possession the petitioners cannot file the present suit and the suit is not
maintainable.

16. The respondents humbly draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over
ORDER II – RULE 2 OF CPC

RULE 2 (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the petitioner is
entitled to make in respect of the cause of action but a petitioner may relinquish
any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the Jurisdiction.

RULE 2 (2): Relinquishment of part of claim:- Where the petitioner omits to

sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes any portion of claim, he shall not
after wards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

RULE 2 (3): Omission to sue for one of Several reliefs:- A person entitled to
more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of
such reliefs but he omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for all such
reliefs, he shall not after wards sue for any reliefs so omitted.

As such in this case, the petitioners in their earlier suit in OS.No. 312/1981
have not sought for any relief to sue for recovery of possession.

The petitioners who filed the present suit for same cause of action have not
obtained any leave of this Hon’ble Court as stiputed in Order II Rule 2(3) of CPC
to sought for the afore said relief.

17. This respondents draw this Hon’ble Court’s kind attention over the
Exhibits marked by the Rayar Naidu – Ex B8 - in OS,No. 312/81. The cursery
perusal of the said Ex-P8 shows that the respondents father Rayar Naidu initially
mortgaged the property in the year 1974. The said Rayar Naidu purchased the very
same property on the strength of the sale deed in the year 1977. As such the said
Rayar Naidu was in the possession of the property right from the year 1974, as a
mortagager. He become the absolute owner in the year 1977 by purchasing the
same on the strength of a registered sale deed. The petitioners filed the suit
OS.No. 312/1981 in the year 1981. But there was no mention on what date, month
and year the said Rayar Naidu has entered in to the suit property. The petitioners
in the suit have not sought for a relief of recovery of possession in the old suit in

..6..
OS.No. 312/1981. In the present suit also there is no mention about on what date,
month and year the said Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property. As per their
candid admission in the petition itself, the Respondents and their father from 1977
were in possession and enjoyment in the suit property. But the Exhibit P8
discloses Rayar Naidu’s entry even in the year 1974 as a mortgage. The
respondants reserve their right to file additroval written statement in future if at all
they lest out and fourd any of the facts.

18. The respondents submit that the petitioners herein filed the petition
only to give trouble and annoyance to respondents and further they filed the suit by
suppressing all the material facts. Further the petitioners have not come with clean
hands, there is no balance of convenience lies on the side of the petitioners but on
the contra if the petition is allowed and the injunction is granted to the petitions as
prayed, the respondants will be put to irreparable loss and hardship which cannot
be compensated by money value.

19. Therefore viewed from any angle the present petition is devoid of
merits and bone fide and the same is deserves to be dismissed with costs.

20. It therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss
the petition with the exemptory cost of this respondents and grant such other relief
of relief’s as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances
of the case.

Advocate for the 1st respondent 1st Respondent

Verification

I Krishnamoorthy ist respondent here by declare and states that the facts
stated above are absolutety true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I sing
this verification at Thiruvannamalai on 27.07.2021

1st Respondent

The Counter filed by the 1st respondent is adopted by the other respondents.

Advocate for the Respondent.

IN THE COURT THE DISTRICT JUDGE IF TIRUVANNAMALAI

 IA.No. 43/2014 in OS.No. 16/2014

1. Mr. Murugan
2. Mr. S. Sasikumar
3. Mrs. C. Vasuki
4. Mrs. K. Bhavani
5. Mrs. K. Meenachi
6. Mr. K. Ram prasaath
7. Mr. M. Chakrapani
8. Mrs. C. Krishnaveni
9. Mr. C. Jayakumar …Petitioner/Plaintiffs

/Vs/

1. Mr. R. Krishnamorthi
2. Mr. R. Devendran
3. Mr. R. Sekar
4. Mr. R. Ravi (Died)
5. Mr. R. Gandhi
6. Mrs. R. Sarsvathi
7. Mr. R. Muralidharan
8. Mr. R. Skaylab Babu
9. Mr. R. Prabhu …Respondents/Defendants

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st RESPONDENT

01. The Petition filed by Petitioner for grant of temporary injunction

restraining the respondents their men, agents, servants, etc., from interfering with
the petitioner’s peaceful possession is false, frivolous, vexatious and is
unsustainable either in law or on facts and deserves to be dismissed in liminie.

..2..
 02. This respondent does not admits any of the allegations contained in
the affidavit save those that are specifically admitted herein and puts the petitioner
to strict proof of each and every one of them.

03. The respondent vehemently denied the averments in this petition as

false and vexatious and invented and except those are specifically admitted by
them rest of the same has to be proved by the petitioners very strictly. Primafacie
no case has been made out as against this respondents and the suit is not
maintainable. The petition filed will not substantiate either on law or on facts.
04. This respondent denied the averments in para no 3 of the petition that
one Mrs. Kanniammal executed a settlement deed and settled the properties in
favour of the petitioners 1 to 4 along with deceased Kartheepan and their father 7 th
petitioners as per the registered document dated at 18.07.1968 by creating the life
interest in favour of 7th petitioners Chakrapani and subsequently infavour of grand
son and daughters are all absolutely false, vexatious and invented and put the
petitioners to strict proof of the same.

05. The respondent vehemently denied the averments stated in para 3 of

the petition as false that since the properties sold to the present defendants father
Rayar Naidu by 7th petitioners namely Chakarapani udaiyar, the petitioners 1 to 4
along with deceased Kartheeban the father of the petitioner 4 to 6 filed the suit
OS.No. 31/1978 to declare that the sale deed executed by 7 th petitioner
Chakarapani is not binding and which was culminated in to a decree on 13.09.1993
and put the petitioner to strict proof of the same.

06. It is true that the father of the respondents Rayar Naidu filed an appeal
in AS. No. 31 of 1994 before the subordinate judge of Tiruvannamalai which was
also dismissed on 28.03.1995.

07. It is true that again the un successful appellant Rayar Naidu filed
second appeal before the High Court of the judicature Madras, in SA.No 382 of
1996 and during the pendency of the appeal the appellant Rayar Naidu died and
present respondents in the suit have been brought on record as legal representatives
of the deceased appellant Rayar Naidu and the Honourable High Court of Madras
also dismissed the second appeal on 23.12.2011.

..3..
 08. The respondents vehemently denied the averments in para 5 of the
petition that the petitioners right over the property have been declared by the court
from lower court to appellate court and the alleged sale deed in the name of present
respondent father Rayar Naidu was declared as null and void and the petitioner has
to prove the same.

09. The respondents denied the averment as absolutely false as that the
petitioner have got absolute right over the properties and they are entitled to take
possession of the properties after the lise time of the estate holder chakrapani
udayar who is the 7 th petitioner here in. It is further false to state that since
the alleged sale infavour of deceased Rayar Naidu was declared as “Null and
Void” by judicial process the respondents have no right to the in possession of
property and the respondents are bound to surrender possession to the petitioners
and it’s false to state that the respondents possession has no legal sanction at all.

10. It is squarely false to state that the respondents who were put in to the
possession of the properties on the basis of invalid alienation have no right to be in
possession of the properties. It is unwarranted to them by asking surrender back
possession of the property to the petitioners herein immediately and this petitioners
cannot claim a such right,Since they never raised it before the trial court in OS.No.
312/1981.

11. It is false to state that the petitioners on several times approached the
respondents to vacate and deliver actual physical possession of properties and it is
also false to state that the respondents have not come forward to surrender actual
physical possession of property. They have no such right and they cannot
approach the respondents as such and the petitioners have no right to file the suit
before this Hon’ble Court for appropriate reliefs.

12. The petitioners burked the real facts and the petitioners have not
approached the Court with clean hands.

13. The respondents have obtained leave of the Honble supreme court of
India in SLP.No and the same is pending before the supreme
court.

14. The prayer of the petitioner to directing this respondents to deliver the
actual physical possession of property here in immediately by vaccating the suit

..4..
property is absolutely wrong and the respondents have not had any bound and duty
to comply the demands of the petitioners.

The true facts are as follow:-

15. The suit property originally belongs to one Kanniyammal. The 3 rd

petitioners husband and respondents 4 and 5’s father namely Kartheeban and
petitioner no 2, 4 and 5 have filed a vexatious suit as against the father of the
respondents Rayar Naidu and against the 7 th respondent and 9th respondent in
OS.No. 312/1987 in which they stick on a settlement deed dated 18.07.1968 and
prayed the said court to declare that the sale deed dated 05.02.1977 which was in
respect of the suit property after the life time of 2 nd respondent is not valid. In the
said suit in OS.No. 312/1978 the 2nd respondent and his son 3rd respondent now
stood in this suit as 7th petitioners were called absent and set exparty in the
aforesaid old suit. They both never respond the said suit and remain Exparty.

13. The petitioner in OS.No. 312/1981 filed the suit with a prayer to
declare the sale deed as Null and Void and will not bind the respondent after the
life time of the 2nd respondent. Therefore the decree in OS.No. 312/1981 would be
enforceable only after the life time of the 7th petitioner Chakrapani.

14. In the present suit the petitioner’s set forth the prayer for recovery of
possession of the suit properties, but they have not pleaded the erucial aspect in the
petition averments that on what date, which month and year this respondent Rayar
Naidu entered into the suit property. For recovery of possession, the petitioner
must prove that they, filed the suit within the stipulated period in 12 years. It at all
any mention of date, month and year was found in the petition averment, about the
entry in the suit property of the Rayar Naidu it will incorporate the limitation and
established that this limitation has been saved. But the petitioners has not
whispered any word in the petition that on what date, month and year, the Rayar
Naidu entered into the suit property.

15. This respondent draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over the
reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the earlier suit number OS.No. 312/2981.
They sought relief of recovery of possession as a prayer ought not set forth in the
earlier suit where the relief was available very much at this time of filing the earlier
suit. But the relief sought for in the earlier suit only to declare the sale deed as

..5..
Null and Void and for permanent injunction alone. Hence with the said prayer of
recovery of possession the petitioners cannot file the present suit and the suit is not
maintainable.

16. The respondents humbly draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over
ORDER II – RULE 2 OF CPC

RULE 2 (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the petitioner is
entitled to make in respect of the cause of action but a petitioner may relinquish
any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the Jurisdiction.

RULE 2 (2): Relinquishment of part of claim:- Where the petitioner omits to

sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes any portion of claim, he shall not
after wards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

RULE 2 (3): Omission to sue for one of Several reliefs:- A person entitled to
more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of
such reliefs but he omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for all such
reliefs, he shall not after wards sue for any reliefs so omitted.

As such in this case, the petitioners in their earlier suit in OS.No. 312/1981
have not sought for any relief to sue for recovery of possession.

The petitioners who filed the present suit for same cause of action have not
obtained any leave of this Hon’ble Court as stiputed in Order II Rule 2(3) of CPC
to sought for the afore said relief.

17. This respondents draw this Hon’ble Court’s kind attention over the
Exhibits marked by the Rayar Naidu – Ex B8 - in OS,No. 312/81. The cursery
perusal of the said Ex-P8 shows that the respondents father Rayar Naidu initially
mortgaged the property in the year 1974. The said Rayar Naidu purchased the very
same property on the strength of the sale deed in the year 1977. As such the said
Rayar Naidu was in the possession of the property right from the year 1974, as a
mortagager. He become the absolute owner in the year 1977 by purchasing the
same on the strength of a registered sale deed. The petitioners filed the suit
OS.No. 312/1981 in the year 1981. But there was no mention on what date, month
and year the said Rayar Naidu has entered in to the suit property. The petitioners
in the suit have not sought for a relief of recovery of possession in the old suit in

..6..
OS.No. 312/1981. In the present suit also there is no mention about on what date,
month and year the said Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property. As per their
candid admission in the petition itself, the Respondents and their father from 1977
were in possession and enjoyment in the suit property. But the Exhibit P8
discloses Rayar Naidu’s entry even in the year 1974 as a mortgage. The
respondants reserve their right to file additroval written statement in future if at all
they lest out and fourd any of the facts.

18. The respondents submit that the petitioners herein filed the petition
only to give trouble and annoyance to respondents and further they filed the suit by
suppressing all the material facts. Further the petitioners have not come with clean
hands, there is no balance of convenience lies on the side of the petitioners but on
the contra if the petition is allowed and the injunction is granted to the petitions as
prayed, the respondants will be put to irreparable loss and hardship which cannot
be compensated by money value.

19. Therefore viewed from any angle the present petition is devoid of
merits and bone fide and the same is deserves to be dismissed with costs.

20. It therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss
the petition with the exemptory cost of this respondents and grant such other relief
of relief’s as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances
of the case.

Advocate for the 1st respondent 1st Respondent

Verification

I Krishnamoorthy ist respondent here by declare and states that the facts
stated above are absolutety true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I sing
this verification at Thiruvannamalai on 27.07.2021

1st Respondent

The Counter filed by the 1st respondent is adopted by the other respondents.

Advocate for the Respondent

UôiTûU áÓRp UôYhP ¿§Uu\m §ÚYiQôUûX AYoLs NêLm

 IA.No /2021 in IA.No. 41/2014 in OS.No. 16/2014

1. Bo. ¡ÚxQêoj§
2. Bo. úRúYk§Wu
...UàRôWoLs/©W§Yô§Ls
3. Bo. úNLo
4. Bo. W® (C\kRôo)
5. Bo. Lôk§
6. Bo. NWvY§
7. Bo. ØW°RWu
8. Bo. vûLXô Tô×
9. Bo. ©W×
10. Bo. ù_Vk§
11. Bo. TôWj
12. Bo. c®jVô
13. Bo. £jWô LôXgùNu\ 4m©W§Yô§/G§oUàRôWo
Yô¬NôL 10 ØRp 13 YûW UàRôWoLs
úNodLlTP úYi¥VYoLs
/G§o/

1. ØÚLu
2. S. N£ÏUôo
3. S. YôÑ¡
4. K. TYô²
5. K. Á]ôh£
6. K. Wôm©WNôj
7. M. NdLWTô¦
8. C. ¡ÚxQúY¦
9. C. ù_VdÏUôo ...G§oUàRôWoLs/Yô§Ls

UàRôWoLs/©W§Yô§Ls TWm RôdLp ùNnÙm E¬ûU«Vp

SûPØû\f NhPm BoPo 22 ìp 3u T¥ RôdLp ùNnÙm Uà
UàRôWoLs/©W§Yô§Ls:
 01. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu
ùS.15, ûWv ªp úTôðo úWôÓ 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôVo
SôÙÓ ÏUôWo 67 YVÕs[ R. ¡ÚxQêoj§.

02. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.9/3H, ÕodûLVmUu úLô«p ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôVo
SôÙÓ ÏUôWo 65 YVÕs[ R. úRúYk§Wu.

03. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.11/4, ÕodûLVmUu úLô«p ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôVo
SôÙÓ ÏUôWo 58 YVÕs[ R. úNLo.

04. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôVo SôÙÓ
ÏUôWo YVÕs[ R. W®

05. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.7/3, ÕodûLVmUu úLô«p ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôVo SôÙÓ
ÏUôWo YVÕs[ R. Lôk§.

06. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, ûWv ªp E¬ûUVô[o Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm
WôVo SôÙÓ ÏUôWj§Ùm, WôUNôª SôÙÓ Uû]®ÙUô ÑUôo YVÕs[
R. NWvY§.

07. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, ûWv ªp Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôUNôª SôÙÓ
ÏUôWo YVÕs[ ØW°RWu.

08. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, ûWv ªp Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôUNôª SôÙÓ
ÏUôWo YVÕs[ vûLXôTô×.

09. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, ûWv ªp Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôUNôª SôÙÓ
ÏUôWo YVÕs[ ©W×.

10. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® Uû]®
YVÕs[ ù_Vk§.
 11. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu
ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® ULu
YVÕs[ TôWj.

12. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® ULs
YVÕs[ c®jVô.

13. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® ULs
YVÕs[ £jWô.

YZdL±Oo ®XôNm:

jpU.S.mgpuhkd; B.Sc., B.L.,

MS.759/1993
tof;fwpQh;>
jpUtz;zhkiy.
nry; : 9443308556
Email: abiramanadvocate@gmail.com

G§oUàRôWoLs/Yô§Ls:-

01. Murugan, aged about 55 years, S/o. Chakrapani Udayar, residing at

D.No.1270, Thendral Nagar, Vengikkal Village and Post, Tiruvannamalai -606 604.

02. Sasikumar, aged about 40 years, S/o. Chakrapani Udayar, residing at

D.No.1270, Thendral Nagar, Vengikkal Village and Post, Tiruvannamalai -606 604.

03. Vasuki, aged about 50 years, D/o. Chakrapani Udayar, residing at

D.No.1270, Thendral Nagar, Vengikkal Village and Post, Tiruvannamalai -606 604.

04. Bavani, aged about 45 years, W/o. Late. Karthipan, residing at

D.No.10/14, Puduvaniankulam 9th Street, Tiruvannamalai -606 601.

05. Meenachi, aged about 23 years, D/o. Karthipan, residing at D.No.10/14,

Puduvaniankulam 9th Street, Tiruvannamalai -606 601.

06. K. Ram Prasath, aged about 21 years, D/o. Karthipan, residing at

D.No.10/14, Puduvaniankulam 9th Street, Tiruvannamalai -606 601.

07. M. Chakarapani Udaiyar, aged about 80 years, S/o. Manicka Udaiyar,

residing at D.No.1270, Thendral Nagar, Vengikkal Village, Tiruvannamalai -606
604.
 08. C. Krishnaveni, aged about 75 years, W/o. Chakrapani Udaiyar,
residing at D.No.1270, Thendral Nagar, Vengikkal Village, Tiruvannamalai -606
604.

09. C. Jayakumar, aged about 52 years, S/o. Chakrapani Udaiyar, Now

residing at Anna Nagar, Phase II, Peelamedu, Coimbatore.

CjÕPu RôdLp ùNnÙm A©P®h¥p LiÓs[ LôWQeLû[ AàN¬jÕ L]m

úLôohPôo AYoLs RVÜ ùNnÕ ùSmTo RôYô®p 30.04.2021 Auß
LôXm ùNu\ 4-m ©W§Yô§ W® GuTYÚdÏ AYWÕ Uû]® 1. ù_Vk§, ULu
2. TWôj, ULsLs 3. c®jVô, 4. £jWô B¡úVôûW 10 ØRp 13 YûW
(Propesed Parties),BL SôsYûWÙm Yô¬Ñ RôWoL[ôL úUtT¥ Uà®p
úNojÕ Uà ®NôWûQ ùRôPW HÕYôn L]m Ej§WÜ ©\©lT úYÔUôn
UàRôWoLs/©W§Yô§Ls úL¬¡\ôoLs.

YZdL±Oo

Yô¬NôL úNodLlThP úYi¥V ®YWmLs:

10. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® Uû]®
YVÕs[ ù_Vk§.

11. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® ULu
YVÕs[ TôWj.

12. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® ULs
YVÕs[ c®jVô.

13. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® ULs
YVÕs[ £jWô.

YZdL±Oo
 UôiTûU áÓRp UôYhP ¿§Uu\m §ÚYiQôUûX AYoLs NêLm
IA.No /2021 in IA.No. 41/2014 in OS.No. 16/2014

1. Bo. ¡ÚxQêoj§
2. Bo. úRúYk§Wu
...UàRôWoLs/©W§Yô§Ls
3. Bo. úNLo
4. Bo. W® (C\kRôo)
5. Bo. Lôk§
6. Bo. NWvY§
7. Bo. ØW°RWu
8. Bo. vûLXô Tô×
9. Bo. ©W×
10. Bo. ù_Vk§
11. Bo. TôWj
12. Bo. c®jVô
13. Bo. £jWô LôXgùNu\ 4m©W§Yô§/G§oUàRôWo
Yô¬NôL úNodLlTP úYi¥VYoLs
/G§o/

1. ØÚLu
2. S. N£ÏUôo
3. S. YôÑ¡
4. K. TYô²
5. K. Á]ôh£
6. K. Wôm©WNôj
7. M. NdLWTô¦
8. C. ¡ÚxQúY¦
9. C. ù_VdÏUôo ...G§oUàRôWoLs/Yô§Ls
 UàRôWo/1m ©W§Yô§ TWm RôdLp ùNnÙm A©P®h

§ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu, ùS. 15,

ûWv ªp úTôðo úWôÓ 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm Sô«o SôÙÓ
ÏUôWo 67 YVÕs[ Bo. ¡ÚxQêoj§ B¡V Sôu ©WUôQj§u úT¬p EߧVôL
áßYRôYÕ,

1. Sôu ùSmTo Uà®p UàRôWo. ANp YZd¡p 1-m ©W§Yô§

BúYu. G]Õ NúLôRW, NúLôR¬Vô] 2 ØRp 9 YûW«Xô]
UàRôWo/©W§Yô§LÞdÏm úNojÕ Sôu CkR A©P®hûP RôdLp ùNn¡ú\u.

2. CkùSmTo YZdÏ G§oUàRôWoLs/Yô§Ls Gu ÁÕm Gu

NúLôRW, NúLôR¬Ls ÁÕm, RôdLp ùNnÕs[]o. Gu NúLôRW,
NúLôR¬Ls AYoLÞdÏm úNojÕ CkR YZdûL Sôú] Øu ¨uß SPj§ YÚ¡ú\u.
CkùSmTo ANp YZd¡p LPkR 27.01.2021 Auß GeL[Õ Aû]Y¬u
Nôo©Ûm UôiTûU ¿§Uu\j§p G§oEûW Utßm G§oYZdÏûW RôdLp
ùNnYRtLôLÜm Auû\V §]m L]m ¿§Uu\j§p B_WôYRtLôLÜm, YônRô
úTôPlTh¥ÚkRÕ. Auû\V §]m G]dÏ YVÕ Ø§oÜ LôWQUôL EPp¨ûX
N¬«pXôUp ùRôPokÕ úSôn G§ol× Nd§ Ïû\kÕ EPp¨ûX N¬VpXôRRôp
LPkR 6 UôR LôXj§tÏ úUXôL UgNs LôUûX úSôÙtß SôhÓ ûYj§Vm, £jR
ûYj§Vm ùY°ë¬ÚkÕ Re¡ UÚjÕYm TôojÕ YkúRu. ARu RôdLj§]ôp EPp
ETôûRLs ùTtß úSô«Ls Cu\[Üm ÏQUûPVôUp £WUlThÓ YÚ¡ú\u.
CR]ôp LPkR 27.01.2021 Auß L]m ¿§Uu\j§p GmUôp úSW¥VôL B_Wô¡
G]Õ RWl©p G§oEûW Utßm G§oYZdÏûW RôdLp ùNnYôRRôÛm, Guû]
AûZjÕ B_¬uûUVôp GUdÏ G§WôL JÚ RûXThNUôL Ej§WÜ ©\
l©dLlThPÕ. úUtT¥ ®YWm GUÕ YZdL±OûW Nk§jÕ úLhP±kR úTôÕ
GUÕ YZdL±Oo. B_¬uûUVÛm, G§oEûW RôdLp ùNnVôRRôÛm.
GUdÏ G§WôL JÚ RûXThNUôL Ej§WÜ ©\l©dLlThPÕ. ARu úT¬p Sôu
CPC Order 9, Rule 7 UàÜm ARàPu, G§oYZdÏûW, UàÜm RtúTôÕ
RôdLp ùNn¡ú\u. Ck¨ûX«p CkùSmTo YZd¡p 4-m ©W§Yô§ W®
GuTYo LPkR 30.04.2021 Auß GkR®R BYQØm Gݧ ûYdLôUp LôXUô¡
®hPôo. C\kR 4-m ©W§Yô§ W® GuTYÚdÏ AYWÕ Uû]® 1. ù_Vk§,
ULu 2. TôWj, ULsLs 3. c®jVô, 4. £jWô B¡úVôo CkÕ Yô¬Ñ¬ûU
NhPlT¥ Yô¬ÑLs BYôoLs. C\kR 4-m ©W§Yô§ W® GuTYo, ®hÓfùNu\
AûNÙm, AûNVô ùNôjÕdLs, Yô¬Ñ RôWoLs Gu\ A¥lTûP«p, CkR
Yô¬Ñ¬ûU NhPlT¥ úUtϱl©hP SToLs Rôu BiÓ AàT®jÕ YÚ¡\ôoLs C\
kR 4-m ©W§Yô§ Uû]®, ù_Vk§, 10-m ©W§Yô§VôLÜm, ULu TôWj -
11m ©W§Yô§VôLÜm, CqYZd¡p, ©W§Yô§L[ôL. AY£VØm ¨VôVØUô¡\
Õ. CPC Order 9, Rule 7 UàûY AàU§dL AkR UàÜPu Sôu CkR UàûYÙm
RôdLp ùNn¡ú\u. LôXgùNu\ 4-m ©W§Yô§«u Uû]® ù_Vk§ 10-m
©W§Yô§«u ULu TôWj 11-m ©W§Yô§VôLÜm, ULsLs c®jVô, £jWô
12, 13 ©W§Yô§L[ôL úNojÕ UàûY úUp SPjR úYi¥VÕ LxP SxPeLs
HtTÓm.

3. BûLVôp L]m úLôoPôo AYoLs. RVÜ ùNnÕ CkùSmTo

Uà®p 30.04.2021 Auß LôXgùNu\ 4-m ©W§Yô§ Uû]®, ù_Vk§. ULu
TôWj, ULsLs c®jVô, £jWô B¡úVôûW 10 ØRp 13 YûW (Propesed
Parties) Sôs YûWÙm Yô¬Ñ RôWoL[ôL úUtT¥ Uà®p úNojÕ RdL
Ej§WÜ ©\l©dÏUôß ©Wôoj§¡ú\u.

úUtLiP NeL§Ls VôÜm EiûU Gußm ()

úS¬p ùR¬Ùm Gußm Eߧ á± Cuß ()

19.07.2021 §ÚYiQôUûX«p Gu ØuTôL ()

ûLùVÝjÕ ùNnRôo. ()
 UôiTûU áÓRp UôYhP ¿§Uu\m §ÚYiQôUûX AYoLs NêLm
IA.No /2021 in IA.No. 42/2014 in OS.No. 16/2014

1. Bo. ¡ÚxQêoj§
2. Bo. úRúYk§Wu
...UàRôWoLs/©W§Yô§Ls
3. Bo. úNLo
4. Bo. W® (C\kRôo)
5. Bo. Lôk§
6. Bo. NWvY§
7. Bo. ØW°RWu
8. Bo. vûLXô Tô×
9. Bo. ©W×
10. Bo. ù_Vk§
11. Bo. TôWj
12. Bo. c®jVô
13. Bo. £jWô LôXgùNu\ 4m©W§Yô§/G§oUàRôWo
Yô¬NôL 10 ØRp 13 YûW UàRôWoLs
úNodLlTP úYi¥VYoLs
/G§o/

1. ØÚLu
2. S. N£ÏUôo
3. S. YôÑ¡
4. K. TYô²
5. K. Á]ôh£
6. K. Wôm©WNôj
7. M. NdLWTô¦
8. C. ¡ÚxQúY¦
9. C. ù_VdÏUôo ...G§oUàRôWoLs/Yô§Ls
 UàRôWoLs/©W§Yô§Ls TWm RôdLp ùNnÙm E¬ûU«Vp
SûPØû\f NhPm BoPo 22 ìp 3u T¥ RôdLp ùNnÙm Uà
UàRôWoLs/©W§Yô§Ls:
01. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu
ùS.15, ûWv ªp úTôðo úWôÓ 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôVo
SôÙÓ ÏUôWo 67 YVÕs[ R. ¡ÚxQêoj§.

02. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.9/3H, ÕodûLVmUu úLô«p ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôVo
SôÙÓ ÏUôWo 65 YVÕs[ R. úRúYk§Wu.

03. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.11/4, ÕodûLVmUu úLô«p ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôVo
SôÙÓ ÏUôWo 58 YVÕs[ R. úNLo.

04. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôVo SôÙÓ
ÏUôWo YVÕs[ R. W®

05. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.7/3, ÕodûLVmUu úLô«p ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôVo SôÙÓ
ÏUôWo YVÕs[ R. Lôk§.

06. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, ûWv ªp E¬ûUVô[o Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm
WôVo SôÙÓ ÏUôWj§Ùm, WôUNôª SôÙÓ Uû]®ÙUô ÑUôo YVÕs[
R. NWvY§.

07. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, ûWv ªp Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôUNôª SôÙÓ
ÏUôWo YVÕs[ ØW°RWu.

08. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, ûWv ªp Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôUNôª SôÙÓ
ÏUôWo YVÕs[ vûLXôTô×.

09. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, ûWv ªp Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôUNôª SôÙÓ
ÏUôWo YVÕs[ ©W×.
 10. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu
ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® Uû]®
YVÕs[ ù_Vk§.

11. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® ULu
YVÕs[ TôWj.

12. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® ULs
YVÕs[ c®jVô.

13. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® ULs
YVÕs[ £jWô.

YZdL±Oo ®XôNm:

jpU.S.mgpuhkd; B.Sc., B.L.,

MS.759/1993
tof;fwpQh;>
jpUtz;zhkiy.
nry; : 9443308556
Email: abiramanadvocate@gmail.com

G§oUàRôWoLs/Yô§Ls:-

01. Murugan, aged about 55 years, S/o. Chakrapani Udayar, residing at

D.No.1270, Thendral Nagar, Vengikkal Village and Post, Tiruvannamalai -606 604.

02. Sasikumar, aged about 40 years, S/o. Chakrapani Udayar, residing at

D.No.1270, Thendral Nagar, Vengikkal Village and Post, Tiruvannamalai -606 604.

03. Vasuki, aged about 50 years, D/o. Chakrapani Udayar, residing at

D.No.1270, Thendral Nagar, Vengikkal Village and Post, Tiruvannamalai -606 604.

04. Bavani, aged about 45 years, W/o. Late. Karthipan, residing at

D.No.10/14, Puduvaniankulam 9th Street, Tiruvannamalai -606 601.

05. Meenachi, aged about 23 years, D/o. Karthipan, residing at D.No.10/14,

Puduvaniankulam 9th Street, Tiruvannamalai -606 601.

06. K. Ram Prasath, aged about 21 years, D/o. Karthipan, residing at

D.No.10/14, Puduvaniankulam 9th Street, Tiruvannamalai -606 601.
 07. M. Chakarapani Udaiyar, aged about 80 years, S/o. Manicka Udaiyar,
residing at D.No.1270, Thendral Nagar, Vengikkal Village, Tiruvannamalai -606
604.

08. C. Krishnaveni, aged about 75 years, W/o. Chakrapani Udaiyar,

residing at D.No.1270, Thendral Nagar, Vengikkal Village, Tiruvannamalai -606
604.

09. C. Jayakumar, aged about 52 years, S/o. Chakrapani Udaiyar, Now

residing at Anna Nagar, Phase II, Peelamedu, Coimbatore.

CjÕPu RôdLp ùNnÙm A©P®h¥p LiÓs[ LôWQeLû[ AàN¬jÕ L]m

úLôohPôo AYoLs RVÜ ùNnÕ ùSmTo RôYô®p 30.04.2021 Auß
LôXm ùNu\ 4-m ©W§Yô§ W® GuTYÚdÏ AYWÕ Uû]® 1. ù_Vk§, ULu
2. TWôj, ULsLs 3. c®jVô, 4. £jWô B¡úVôûW 10 ØRp 13 YûW
(Propesed Parties),BL SôsYûWÙm Yô¬Ñ RôWoL[ôL úUtT¥ Uà®p
úNojÕ Uà ®NôWûQ ùRôPW HÕYôn L]m Ej§WÜ ©\©lT úYÔUôn
UàRôWoLs/©W§Yô§Ls úL¬¡\ôoLs.

YZdL±Oo

Yô¬NôL úNodLlThP úYi¥V ®YWmLs:

10. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® Uû]®
YVÕs[ ù_Vk§.

11. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® ULu
YVÕs[ TôWj.

12. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® ULs
YVÕs[ c®jVô.

13. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® ULs
YVÕs[ £jWô.
 YZdL±Oo

UôiTûU áÓRp UôYhP ¿§Uu\m §ÚYiQôUûX AYoLs NêLm

IA.No /2021 in IA.No. 42/2014 in OS.No. 16/2014

1. Bo. ¡ÚxQêoj§
2. Bo. úRúYk§Wu
...UàRôWoLs/©W§Yô§Ls
3. Bo. úNLo
4. Bo. W® (C\kRôo)
5. Bo. Lôk§
6. Bo. NWvY§
7. Bo. ØW°RWu
8. Bo. vûLXô Tô×
9. Bo. ©W×
10. Bo. ù_Vk§
11. Bo. TôWj
12. Bo. c®jVô
13. Bo. £jWô LôXgùNu\ 4m©W§Yô§/G§oUàRôWo
Yô¬NôL úNodLlTP úYi¥VYoLs
/G§o/

1. ØÚLu
2. S. N£ÏUôo
3. S. YôÑ¡
4. K. TYô²
5. K. Á]ôh£
6. K. Wôm©WNôj
7. M. NdLWTô¦
8. C. ¡ÚxQúY¦
9. C. ù_VdÏUôo ...G§oUàRôWoLs/Yô§Ls

UàRôWo/1m ©W§Yô§ TWm RôdLp ùNnÙm A©P®h

§ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu, ùS. 15,

ûWv ªp úTôðo úWôÓ 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm Sô«o SôÙÓ
ÏUôWo 67 YVÕs[ Bo. ¡ÚxQêoj§ B¡V Sôu ©WUôQj§u úT¬p EߧVôL
áßYRôYÕ,

1. Sôu ùSmTo Uà®p UàRôWo. ANp YZd¡p 1-m ©W§Yô§

BúYu. G]Õ NúLôRW, NúLôR¬Vô] 2 ØRp 9 YûW«Xô]
UàRôWo/©W§Yô§LÞdÏm úNojÕ Sôu CkR A©P®hûP RôdLp ùNn¡ú\u.

2. CkùSmTo YZdÏ G§oUàRôWoLs/Yô§Ls Gu ÁÕm Gu

NúLôRW, NúLôR¬Ls ÁÕm, RôdLp ùNnÕs[]o. Gu NúLôRW,
NúLôR¬Ls AYoLÞdÏm úNojÕ CkR YZdûL Sôú] Øu ¨uß SPj§ YÚ¡ú\u.
CkùSmTo ANp YZd¡p LPkR 27.01.2021 Auß GeL[Õ Aû]Y¬u
Nôo©Ûm UôiTûU ¿§Uu\j§p G§oEûW Utßm G§oYZdÏûW RôdLp
ùNnYRtLôLÜm Auû\V §]m L]m ¿§Uu\j§p B_WôYRtLôLÜm, YônRô
úTôPlTh¥ÚkRÕ. Auû\V §]m G]dÏ YVÕ Ø§oÜ LôWQUôL EPp¨ûX
N¬«pXôUp ùRôPokÕ úSôn G§ol× Nd§ Ïû\kÕ EPp¨ûX N¬VpXôRRôp
LPkR 6 UôR LôXj§tÏ úUXôL UgNs LôUûX úSôÙtß SôhÓ ûYj§Vm, £jR
ûYj§Vm ùY°ë¬ÚkÕ Re¡ UÚjÕYm TôojÕ YkúRu. ARu RôdLj§]ôp EPp
ETôûRLs ùTtß úSô«Ls Cu\[Üm ÏQUûPVôUp £WUlThÓ YÚ¡ú\u.
CR]ôp LPkR 27.01.2021 Auß L]m ¿§Uu\j§p GmUôp úSW¥VôL B_Wô¡
G]Õ RWl©p G§oEûW Utßm G§oYZdÏûW RôdLp ùNnYôRRôÛm, Guû]
AûZjÕ B_¬uûUVôp GUdÏ G§WôL JÚ RûXThNUôL Ej§WÜ ©\
l©dLlThPÕ. úUtT¥ ®YWm GUÕ YZdL±OûW Nk§jÕ úLhP±kR úTôÕ
GUÕ YZdL±Oo. B_¬uûUVÛm, G§oEûW RôdLp ùNnVôRRôÛm.
GUdÏ G§WôL JÚ RûXThNUôL Ej§WÜ ©\l©dLlThPÕ. ARu úT¬p Sôu
CPC Order 9, Rule 7 UàÜm ARàPu, G§oYZdÏûW, UàÜm RtúTôÕ
RôdLp ùNn¡ú\u. Ck¨ûX«p CkùSmTo YZd¡p 4-m ©W§Yô§ W®
GuTYo LPkR 30.04.2021 Auß GkR®R BYQØm Gݧ ûYdLôUp LôXUô¡
®hPôo. C\kR 4-m ©W§Yô§ W® GuTYÚdÏ AYWÕ Uû]® 1. ù_Vk§,
ULu 2. TôWj, ULsLs 3. c®jVô, 4. £jWô B¡úVôo CkÕ Yô¬Ñ¬ûU
NhPlT¥ Yô¬ÑLs BYôoLs. C\kR 4-m ©W§Yô§ W® GuTYo, ®hÓfùNu\
AûNÙm, AûNVô ùNôjÕdLs, Yô¬Ñ RôWoLs Gu\ A¥lTûP«p, CkR
Yô¬Ñ¬ûU NhPlT¥ úUtϱl©hP SToLs Rôu BiÓ AàT®jÕ YÚ¡\ôoLs C\
kR 4-m ©W§Yô§ Uû]®, ù_Vk§, 10-m ©W§Yô§VôLÜm, ULu TôWj -
11m ©W§Yô§VôLÜm, CqYZd¡p, ©W§Yô§L[ôL. AY£VØm ¨VôVØUô¡\
Õ. CPC Order 9, Rule 7 UàûY AàU§dL AkR UàÜPu Sôu CkR UàûYÙm
RôdLp ùNn¡ú\u. LôXgùNu\ 4-m ©W§Yô§«u Uû]® ù_Vk§ 10-m
©W§Yô§«u ULu TôWj 11-m ©W§Yô§VôLÜm, ULsLs c®jVô, £jWô
12, 13 ©W§Yô§L[ôL úNojÕ UàûY úUp SPjR úYi¥VÕ LxP SxPeLs
HtTÓm.

3. BûLVôp L]m úLôoPôo AYoLs. RVÜ ùNnÕ CkùSmTo

Uà®p 30.04.2021 Auß LôXgùNu\ 4-m ©W§Yô§ Uû]®, ù_Vk§. ULu
TôWj, ULsLs c®jVô, £jWô B¡úVôûW 10 ØRp 13 YûW (Propesed
Parties) Sôs YûWÙm Yô¬Ñ RôWoL[ôL úUtT¥ Uà®p úNojÕ RdL
Ej§WÜ ©\l©dÏUôß ©Wôoj§¡ú\u.

úUtLiP NeL§Ls VôÜm EiûU Gußm ()

úS¬p ùR¬Ùm Gußm Eߧ á± Cuß ()

19.07.2021 §ÚYiQôUûX«p Gu ØuTôL ()

ûLùVÝjÕ ùNnRôo. ()
 UôiTûU áÓRp UôYhP ¿§Uu\m §ÚYiQôUûX AYoLs NêLm
IA.No /2021 in IA.No. 43/2014 in OS.No. 16/2014

1. Bo. ¡ÚxQêoj§
2. Bo. úRúYk§Wu
...UàRôWoLs/©W§Yô§Ls
3. Bo. úNLo
4. Bo. W® (C\kRôo)
5. Bo. Lôk§
6. Bo. NWvY§
7. Bo. ØW°RWu
8. Bo. vûLXô Tô×
9. Bo. ©W×
10. Bo. ù_Vk§
11. Bo. TôWj
12. Bo. c®jVô
13. Bo. £jWô LôXgùNu\ 4m©W§Yô§/G§oUàRôWo
Yô¬NôL 10 ØRp 13 YûW UàRôWoLs
úNodLlTP úYi¥VYoLs
/G§o/

1. ØÚLu
2. S. N£ÏUôo
3. S. YôÑ¡
4. K. TYô²
5. K. Á]ôh£
6. K. Wôm©WNôj
7. M. NdLWTô¦
8. C. ¡ÚxQúY¦
9. C. ù_VdÏUôo ...G§oUàRôWoLs/Yô§Ls

UàRôWoLs/©W§Yô§Ls TWm RôdLp ùNnÙm E¬ûU«Vp

SûPØû\f NhPm BoPo 22 ìp 3u T¥ RôdLp ùNnÙm Uà
UàRôWoLs/©W§Yô§Ls:
01. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu
ùS.15, ûWv ªp úTôðo úWôÓ 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôVo
SôÙÓ ÏUôWo 67 YVÕs[ R. ¡ÚxQêoj§.

02. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.9/3H, ÕodûLVmUu úLô«p ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôVo
SôÙÓ ÏUôWo 65 YVÕs[ R. úRúYk§Wu.

03. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.11/4, ÕodûLVmUu úLô«p ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôVo
SôÙÓ ÏUôWo 58 YVÕs[ R. úNLo.

04. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôVo SôÙÓ
ÏUôWo YVÕs[ R. W®

05. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.7/3, ÕodûLVmUu úLô«p ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôVo SôÙÓ
ÏUôWo YVÕs[ R. Lôk§.

06. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, ûWv ªp E¬ûUVô[o Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm
WôVo SôÙÓ ÏUôWj§Ùm, WôUNôª SôÙÓ Uû]®ÙUô ÑUôo YVÕs[
R. NWvY§.

07. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, ûWv ªp Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôUNôª SôÙÓ
ÏUôWo YVÕs[ ØW°RWu.

08. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, ûWv ªp Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôUNôª SôÙÓ
ÏUôWo YVÕs[ vûLXôTô×.
 09. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu
ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, ûWv ªp Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm WôUNôª SôÙÓ
ÏUôWo YVÕs[ ©W×.

10. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® Uû]®
YVÕs[ ù_Vk§.

11. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® ULu
YVÕs[ TôWj.

12. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® ULs
YVÕs[ c®jVô.

13. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® ULs
YVÕs[ £jWô.

YZdL±Oo ®XôNm:

jpU.S.mgpuhkd; B.Sc., B.L.,

MS.759/1993
tof;fwpQh;>
jpUtz;zhkiy.
nry; : 9443308556
Email: abiramanadvocate@gmail.com

G§oUàRôWoLs/Yô§Ls:-

01. Murugan, aged about 55 years, S/o. Chakrapani Udayar, residing at

D.No.1270, Thendral Nagar, Vengikkal Village and Post, Tiruvannamalai -606 604.

02. Sasikumar, aged about 40 years, S/o. Chakrapani Udayar, residing at

D.No.1270, Thendral Nagar, Vengikkal Village and Post, Tiruvannamalai -606 604.

03. Vasuki, aged about 50 years, D/o. Chakrapani Udayar, residing at

D.No.1270, Thendral Nagar, Vengikkal Village and Post, Tiruvannamalai -606 604.

04. Bavani, aged about 45 years, W/o. Late. Karthipan, residing at

D.No.10/14, Puduvaniankulam 9th Street, Tiruvannamalai -606 601.

05. Meenachi, aged about 23 years, D/o. Karthipan, residing at D.No.10/14,

Puduvaniankulam 9th Street, Tiruvannamalai -606 601.
 06. K. Ram Prasath, aged about 21 years, D/o. Karthipan, residing at
D.No.10/14, Puduvaniankulam 9th Street, Tiruvannamalai -606 601.

07. M. Chakarapani Udaiyar, aged about 80 years, S/o. Manicka Udaiyar,

residing at D.No.1270, Thendral Nagar, Vengikkal Village, Tiruvannamalai -606
604.

08. C. Krishnaveni, aged about 75 years, W/o. Chakrapani Udaiyar,

residing at D.No.1270, Thendral Nagar, Vengikkal Village, Tiruvannamalai -606
604.

09. C. Jayakumar, aged about 52 years, S/o. Chakrapani Udaiyar, Now

residing at Anna Nagar, Phase II, Peelamedu, Coimbatore.

CjÕPu RôdLp ùNnÙm A©P®h¥p LiÓs[ LôWQeLû[ AàN¬jÕ L]m

úLôohPôo AYoLs RVÜ ùNnÕ ùSmTo RôYô®p 30.04.2021 Auß
LôXm ùNu\ 4-m ©W§Yô§ W® GuTYÚdÏ AYWÕ Uû]® 1. ù_Vk§, ULu
2. TWôj, ULsLs 3. c®jVô, 4. £jWô B¡úVôûW 10 ØRp 13 YûW
(Propesed Parties),BL SôsYûWÙm Yô¬Ñ RôWoL[ôL úUtT¥ Uà®p
úNojÕ Uà ®NôWûQ ùRôPW HÕYôn L]m Ej§WÜ ©\©lT úYÔUôn
UàRôWoLs/©W§Yô§Ls úL¬¡\ôoLs.

YZdL±Oo

Yô¬NôL úNodLlThP úYi¥V ®YWmLs:

10. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® Uû]®
YVÕs[ ù_Vk§.

11. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® ULu
YVÕs[ TôWj.

12. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® ULs
YVÕs[ c®jVô.

13. §ÚYiQôUûX UôYhP Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu

ùS.15, úTôðo úWôÓ, 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p (úXh) W® ULs
YVÕs[ £jWô.
 YZdL±Oo

UôiTûU áÓRp UôYhP ¿§Uu\m §ÚYiQôUûX AYoLs NêLm

IA.No /2021 in IA.No. 43/2014 in OS.No. 16/2014

1. Bo. ¡ÚxQêoj§
2. Bo. úRúYk§Wu
...UàRôWoLs/©W§Yô§Ls
3. Bo. úNLo
4. Bo. W® (C\kRôo)
5. Bo. Lôk§
6. Bo. NWvY§
7. Bo. ØW°RWu
8. Bo. vûLXô Tô×
9. Bo. ©W×
10. Bo. ù_Vk§
11. Bo. TôWj
12. Bo. c®jVô
13. Bo. £jWô LôXgùNu\ 4m©W§Yô§/G§oUàRôWo
Yô¬NôL úNodLlTP úYi¥VYoLs
/G§o/

1. ØÚLu
2. S. N£ÏUôo
3. S. YôÑ¡
4. K. TYô²
5. K. Á]ôh£
6. K. Wôm©WNôj
7. M. NdLWTô¦
8. C. ¡ÚxQúY¦
9. C. ù_VdÏUôo ...G§oUàRôWoLs/Yô§Ls

UàRôWo/1m ©W§Yô§ TWm RôdLp ùNnÙm A©P®h

§ÚYiQôUûX UôYhPm Utßm YhPm, §ÚYiQôUûX PÜu, ùS. 15,

ûWv ªp úTôðo úWôÓ 4-YÕ ùRÚ Gu\ ØLY¬«p Y£dÏm Sô«o SôÙÓ
ÏUôWo 67 YVÕs[ Bo. ¡ÚxQêoj§ B¡V Sôu ©WUôQj§u úT¬p EߧVôL
áßYRôYÕ,

1. Sôu ùSmTo Uà®p UàRôWo. ANp YZd¡p 1-m ©W§Yô§

BúYu. G]Õ NúLôRW, NúLôR¬Vô] 2 ØRp 9 YûW«Xô]
UàRôWo/©W§Yô§LÞdÏm úNojÕ Sôu CkR A©P®hûP RôdLp ùNn¡ú\u.

2. CkùSmTo YZdÏ G§oUàRôWoLs/Yô§Ls Gu ÁÕm Gu

NúLôRW, NúLôR¬Ls ÁÕm, RôdLp ùNnÕs[]o. Gu NúLôRW,
NúLôR¬Ls AYoLÞdÏm úNojÕ CkR YZdûL Sôú] Øu ¨uß SPj§ YÚ¡ú\u.
CkùSmTo ANp YZd¡p LPkR 27.01.2021 Auß GeL[Õ Aû]Y¬u
Nôo©Ûm UôiTûU ¿§Uu\j§p G§oEûW Utßm G§oYZdÏûW RôdLp
ùNnYRtLôLÜm Auû\V §]m L]m ¿§Uu\j§p B_WôYRtLôLÜm, YônRô
úTôPlTh¥ÚkRÕ. Auû\V §]m G]dÏ YVÕ Ø§oÜ LôWQUôL EPp¨ûX
N¬«pXôUp ùRôPokÕ úSôn G§ol× Nd§ Ïû\kÕ EPp¨ûX N¬VpXôRRôp
LPkR 6 UôR LôXj§tÏ úUXôL UgNs LôUûX úSôÙtß SôhÓ ûYj§Vm, £jR
ûYj§Vm ùY°ë¬ÚkÕ Re¡ UÚjÕYm TôojÕ YkúRu. ARu RôdLj§]ôp EPp
ETôûRLs ùTtß úSô«Ls Cu\[Üm ÏQUûPVôUp £WUlThÓ YÚ¡ú\u.
CR]ôp LPkR 27.01.2021 Auß L]m ¿§Uu\j§p GmUôp úSW¥VôL B_Wô¡
G]Õ RWl©p G§oEûW Utßm G§oYZdÏûW RôdLp ùNnYôRRôÛm, Guû]
AûZjÕ B_¬uûUVôp GUdÏ G§WôL JÚ RûXThNUôL Ej§WÜ ©\
l©dLlThPÕ. úUtT¥ ®YWm GUÕ YZdL±OûW Nk§jÕ úLhP±kR úTôÕ
GUÕ YZdL±Oo. B_¬uûUVÛm, G§oEûW RôdLp ùNnVôRRôÛm.
GUdÏ G§WôL JÚ RûXThNUôL Ej§WÜ ©\l©dLlThPÕ. ARu úT¬p Sôu
CPC Order 9, Rule 7 UàÜm ARàPu, G§oYZdÏûW, UàÜm RtúTôÕ
RôdLp ùNn¡ú\u. Ck¨ûX«p CkùSmTo YZd¡p 4-m ©W§Yô§ W®
GuTYo LPkR 30.04.2021 Auß GkR®R BYQØm Gݧ ûYdLôUp LôXUô¡
®hPôo. C\kR 4-m ©W§Yô§ W® GuTYÚdÏ AYWÕ Uû]® 1. ù_Vk§,
ULu 2. TôWj, ULsLs 3. c®jVô, 4. £jWô B¡úVôo CkÕ Yô¬Ñ¬ûU
NhPlT¥ Yô¬ÑLs BYôoLs. C\kR 4-m ©W§Yô§ W® GuTYo, ®hÓfùNu\
AûNÙm, AûNVô ùNôjÕdLs, Yô¬Ñ RôWoLs Gu\ A¥lTûP«p, CkR
Yô¬Ñ¬ûU NhPlT¥ úUtϱl©hP SToLs Rôu BiÓ AàT®jÕ YÚ¡\ôoLs C\
kR 4-m ©W§Yô§ Uû]®, ù_Vk§, 10-m ©W§Yô§VôLÜm, ULu TôWj -
11m ©W§Yô§VôLÜm, CqYZd¡p, ©W§Yô§L[ôL. AY£VØm ¨VôVØUô¡\
Õ. CPC Order 9, Rule 7 UàûY AàU§dL AkR UàÜPu Sôu CkR UàûYÙm
RôdLp ùNn¡ú\u. LôXgùNu\ 4-m ©W§Yô§«u Uû]® ù_Vk§ 10-m
©W§Yô§«u ULu TôWj 11-m ©W§Yô§VôLÜm, ULsLs c®jVô, £jWô
12, 13 ©W§Yô§L[ôL úNojÕ UàûY úUp SPjR úYi¥VÕ LxP SxPeLs
HtTÓm.

3. BûLVôp L]m úLôoPôo AYoLs. RVÜ ùNnÕ CkùSmTo

Uà®p 30.04.2021 Auß LôXgùNu\ 4-m ©W§Yô§ Uû]®, ù_Vk§. ULu
TôWj, ULsLs c®jVô, £jWô B¡úVôûW 10 ØRp 13 YûW (Propesed
Parties) Sôs YûWÙm Yô¬Ñ RôWoL[ôL úUtT¥ Uà®p úNojÕ RdL
Ej§WÜ ©\l©dÏUôß ©Wôoj§¡ú\u.

úUtLiP NeL§Ls VôÜm EiûU Gußm ()

úS¬p ùR¬Ùm Gußm Eߧ á± Cuß ()

19.07.2021 §ÚYiQôUûX«p Gu ØuTôL ()

ûLùVÝjÕ ùNnRôo. ()
 IN THE COURT THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT
TIRUVANNAMALAI
OS.No. 16/2014

1. Mr. Murugan
2. Mr. S. Sasikumar
3. Mrs. C. Vasuki
4. Mrs. K. Bhavani
5. Mrs. K. Meenachi
6. Mr. K. Ram prasaath
7. Mr. M. Chakrapani
8. Mrs. C. Krishnaveni
9. Mr. C. Jayakumar …Plaintiffs

/Vs/

1. Mr. R. Krishnamorthi
2. Mr. R. Devendran
3. Mr. R. Sekar
4. Mr. R. Ravi (Died)
5. Mr. R. Gandhi
6. Mrs. R. Sarsvathi
7. Mr. R. Muralidharan
8. Mr. R. Skaylab Babu
9. Mr. R. Prabhu …Defendants
 WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS
UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 8 OF CILIV PROCEDURE CODE

01. The Defendants vehemently denied the averments contained in this

plaint, as false and vexatious and away from truth except those that are specifically
admitted and put the plaintiff to strict proof of the same.

..2..

02. The defendants vehemently denied the averments in para no 3 of the

plaint that one Mrs. Kanniammal executed a settlement deed and settled the
properties in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 4 along with deceased kartheepan and
their father 7th plaintiff as per the registered document dated at 18.07.1968 by
creating the life interest in favour of 7 th plaintiff Chakrapanni and subsequently
infavour of grand son and daughters absolutely as false and put the plaintiff to
strict proof of the same.

03. The defendants vehemently denied the avenments as false in para 3 of

the plaint that since the properties sold to the present defendants father Rayar
Naidu by 7th plaintiff namely Chakarapani udaiyar, the plaintiffs 1 to 4 along with
deceased Kartheeban, the father of the plaintiff 4 to 6, filed the suit to declare that
the sale deed executed by 7 th plaintiff Chakarapani is not binding before the district
munsif court tiruvannamalai in OS.No. 312 of 1981 which was culminated in to a
decree on 13.09.1993 and put the plaintiff to strict proof of the same.

04. It is true that the father of the defendants Rayar Naidu filed an appeal
in AS.No. 31/1994 before the subordinate judge of Tiruvannamalai which was also
dismissed on 28.03.1995.

05. It is also true that again the un successful appeallant Rayar Naidu
filed second appeal before the High court of the judicature Madras, in SA.No.
382/1996 and during the pendency of the appeal the appeallant Rayar Naidu was
died and present defendants in the suit have been brought on record as legal
representatives of the deceased/Appellant Rayar Naidu and the Honourable High
Court of Madras also dismissed the second appeal on 23.12.2011.
 06. The defendants vehemently denied the averments as false in para 5 of
the plaint that the plaintiffs right over the property have been declared by the court
from lower court to appeallate court and the alleged sale deed in the name of
present defendant father Rayar Naidu was declared as null and void and put the
plaintiffs to strict proof of the same.

07. The defendants denied the averments as false that the plaintiff have
got absolute right over the properties and they are entitled to take possession of the
properties after the life time of the estate holder Sakarpani udayar who is the 7 th
plaintiff here in. It is further false to state that since the alleged sale infavour of

..3..

deceased Rayar Naidu was declared as “Null and Void by judicial process the
defendants have no right be in possession of property. The defendants are not
bound to surrender the possession of the properties to the plaintiffs and it is
absolutely false and wrong to state that the defendants possession has no legal
sanction at all and put the plaintiffs tesment proof of the same.

08. It is squarely false to state that the defendants who were put in to the
possession of the properties on the basis of invalid alienation have no right to be in
possession of the properties. The defendants are bound to prove this fact it is the
case of the plaintiffs that “the plaintiff got absolute right over the suit property and
they are entitled to take possession of the properties after the lifetime of the estate
holder, 7th plaintiffs herein . It is being so, how the petitioners/plaintiffs entitles to
file the present suit with such prayer, and then it is unwarranted to the defendants
to asked for surrender back the possession of the property to the plaintiffs herein
immediately and this plaintiffs cannot claim such a right as their legal right.

09. It is false to state that the plaintiff s on several times approached the
defendants to vacate and deliver actural physical possession of properties and it is
also false to state that the defendants have not come forward to surrender actual
physical possession of the property and similarly they have no such right and they
cannot approach the defendants with such prayer, the plaintiffs have no right to file
the suit before this Hon’ble court for appropriate reliefs.

10. It’s false to state that the cause of action arose on 18.07.1968 the date
of settlement deed and on 13.09.1993 in OS.No. 312/81 the date decree and
judgment on 28.03.1995 in AS.No. 31/94 the date decree and judgment in the
appeal and on 23.12.2011 the date of judgement in SA.No. 382/96 finally on
10.12.2013 when the plaintiff demanded surrender of possession of property and
all subsequent dates the plaintiffs again demanded the defendant to surrender the
possession to the plaintiffs but the defendants failed to bring the same over
possession property and hence on all subsequent date where the suit properties are
situated with in the jurisdiction of the Honourable court at Thiruvannamalai. There
is no cause of action for this defendants.

11. The plaintiffs wrongly valued the suit and they have burked the real
value of the property.

..4..

The true facts are as follows:

12. The suit property originally belongs to one Kanniyammal. The 3 rd

plaintiff’s husband and defendants 4 and 5’s father namely Kartheebar and plaintiff
no 2, 4 and 5 have filed a vexatious suit as against the father of the defendants
Rayar Naidu and against the 7th defendant and 9th defendant in which the plaintiffs
stick on a settlement deed dated 18.07.1968 and prayed to declare the said deed
dated 05.02.77 which was in respect of the suit property after the life time of 2 nd
defendant is not valid. In the said suit the 7 th and 8th plaintiffs have enlisted as 2 nd
defendant and 3rd defendant and were called absent and set exparty in the aforesaid
old suit.

13. The prayer the plaintiffs in this case are all parties in the suit number
312/1981 to declare the sale deed null and void and it will not bind on the plaintiff
after the life time of 2nd defendant. Therefore the decree would be enforceable only
after the life time of Chakkarapani. It is the well seltled law.

14. In the present suit for recovery of possession the plaintiff a ought to
have mentioned on what date the defendant Rayar Naidu entered in to the suit
property and from what date he was in enjoyment and subsequent dates in OS.No.
312/1981. The limitation of 12 years has neen lapsed. They filed the suit after
lapse of 12 years No mention found in the pleadings and on what date previous suit
the defendants entered in to the property with date month year to be pleaded. But
it was not pleaded as such.
 15. The present relief was available at the time of filing of the earlier suit
itself. There is no permission was obtained under order 2 rule 2 (2A) of CPC
hence the present suit is not maintainable. Either in law or on facts.

16. The defendant is father had purchased the suit property in the year
1977, he had been in possession of same till his life time. There after the present
defendant are in possession of the same. In the earlier suit on OS.No. 312/1981 the
defendents father had marked property tax as EX,A4 series which is of the year
1974 to 1977 when he was mortgaged from 1977 where owner of this property
barred by law bared under order 2 rule 2.

17. The plaintiffs in the case no 7 and 9 have showed as defendants no 2

and 3 and they remained Exparty in OS.No. 312/1981. Now, they are plaintiffs in

..5..

this present suit. Hence it is crystal clearly goes to show that 2 nd and 3rd defendants
engaged their legal heirs and deprieved the defendants.

18. The collusion between the 7th and 9th plaintiffs and other plaintiffs
have been crystal clearly established. The defendants reserve their right to submit
the other facts they filed it in as the additional written statement.

19. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble court may consider the
aforesaid facts and dismiss the suit with the exemplary cost of the defendants and
pass such other orders wich deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Advocate forth 1st defendant 1st denfendant

I he is defendant herein do hereby declare and state that the facts stated
above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I sign this verification at
Thiruvannamalai on 02.08.2021.
 1st defendant

The written statement filed by the 1 st defendant is adopted by the other

Defendants.

Advocate for the Defendant.

IN THE COURT THE DISTRICT JUDGE IF TIRUVANNAMALAI

IA.No. 41/2014 in OS.No. 16/2014

1. Mr. Murugan
2. Mr. S. Sasikumar
3. Mrs. C. Vasuki
4. Mrs. K. Bhavani
5. Mrs. K. Meenachi
6. Mr. K. Ram prasaath
7. Mr. M. Chakrapani
8. Mrs. C. Krishnaveni
9. Mr. C. Jayakumar …Petitioner/Plaintiffs

/Vs/

1. Mr. R. Krishnamorthi
2. Mr. R. Devendran
3. Mr. R. Sekar
4. Mr. R. Ravi (Died)
5. Mr. R. Gandhi
6. Mrs. R. Sarsvathi
7. Mr. R. Muralidharan
8. Mr. R. Skaylab Babu
9. Mr. R. Prabhu …Respondents/Defendants

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st RESPONDENT

01. The Petition filed by Petitioner for grant of temporary injunction

restraining the respondents not to alter the physical feature of the petitioner
mentioned property till the disposal of the suit and in the meanwhile grant an add
interim order in the like manner against the respondants till the disposal of this
application is false, frivolous, vexatious and is unsustainable either in law or on
facts and deserves to be dismissed in liminie.

..2..

02. This respondent does not admits any of the allegations contained in
the affidavit save those that are specifically admitted herein and puts the petitioner
to strict proof of each and every one of them.

03. The respondent vehemently denied the averments in this petition as

false and vexatious and invented and except those are specifically admitted by
them rest of the same has to be proved by the petitioners very strictly. Primafacie
no case has been made out as against this respondents and the suit is not
maintainable. The petition filed will not substantiate either on law or on facts.
04. This respondent denied the averments in para no 3 of the petition that
one Mrs. Kanniammal executed a settlement deed and settled the properties in
favour of the petitioners 1 to 4 along with deceased Kartheepan and their father 7 th
petitioners as per the registered document dated at 18.07.1968 by creating the life
interest in favour of 7th petitioners Chakrapani and subsequently infavour of grand
son and daughters are all absolutely false, vexatious and invented and put the
petitioners to strict proof of the same.

05. The respondent vehemently denied the averments stated in para 3 of

the petition as false that since the properties sold to the present defendants father
Rayar Naidu by 7th petitioners namely Chakarapani udaiyar, the petitioners 1 to 4
along with deceased Kartheeban the father of the petitioner 4 to 6 filed the suit
OS.No. 31/1978 to declare that the sale deed executed by 7 th petitioner
Chakarapani is not binding and which was culminated in to a decree on 13.09.1993
and put the petitioner to strict proof of the same.

06. It is true that the father of the respondents Rayar Naidu filed an appeal
in AS. No. 31 of 1994 before the subordinate judge of Tiruvannamalai which was
also dismissed on 28.03.1995.

07. It is true that again the un successful appellant Rayar Naidu filed
second appeal before the High Court of the judicature Madras, in SA.No 382 of
1996 and during the pendency of the appeal the appellant Rayar Naidu died and
present respondents in the suit have been brought on record as legal representatives
of the deceased appellant Rayar Naidu and the Honourable High Court of Madras
also dismissed the second appeal on 23.12.2011.

..3..

08. The respondents vehemently denied the averments in para 5 of the

petition that the petitioners right over the property have been declared by the court
from lower court to appellate court and the alleged sale deed in the name of present
respondent father Rayar Naidu was declared as null and void and the petitioner has
to prove the same. The lower court never delare their right over the suit property
and declare only the sale as null and void. This respondents preyar an SLP before
the Hon’ble Supreme court of India and the same is pending with.

09. The respondents denied the averment as absolutely false as that the
petitioner have got absolute right over the properties and they are entitled to take
possession of the properties after the life time of the estate holder chakrapani
udayar who is the 7 th petitioner here in. It is further false to state that since
the alleged sale infavour of deceased Rayar Naidu was declared as “Null and
Void” by judicial process the respondents have no right to be in possession of
property and the respondents are bound to surrender possession to the petitioners
and it’s false to state that the respondents possession has no legal sanction at all.

10. It is squarely false to state that the respondents who were put in to the
possession of the properties on the basis of invalid alienation have no right to be in
possession of the properties. It is unwarranted to them by asking to surrender back
possession of the property to the petitioners herein immediately and this petitioners
cannot claim a such right,Since they never raised it before the trial court in OS.No.
312/1981. Further this respondants are in peaceful possession of the schedule
mentioned property since from 1979 as per the mortgage deed.

11. It is false to state that the petitioners on several times approached the
respondents to vacate and deliver actual physical possession of properties and it is
also false to state that the respondents have not come forward to surrender actual
physical possession of property. Thid petitioner are no such right and they cannot
approach this respondents as such to vacate and to deliver and the petitioners have
no right to file the suit before this Hon’ble Court for appropriate reliefs. Since they
never raised it at the time of filing the suit in the year 1981.

12. The petitioners burked the real facts and the petitioners have not
approached the Court with clean hands.

..4..

13. The respondents have obtained leave of the Honble supreme court of
India in SLP.No and the same is pending before the supreme
court.

14. The prayer of the petitioner to directing this respondents to deliver the
actual physical possession of property herein immediately by vaccating the suit
property is absolutely wrong and the respondents are not having any bound and
duty to comply the demands of the petitioners.

The true facts are as follow:-

15. The schedule mentioned property originally belongs to one

Kanniyammal. The 3rd petitioners husband and respondents 4 and 5’s father
namely Kartheeban and petitioner no 2, 4 and 5 have filed a vexatious suit as
against the father of the respondents Rayar Naidu and against the 7 th respondent
and 9th respondent in OS.No. 312/1987 in which they stick on a settlement deed
dated 18.07.1968 and prayed the said court to declare that the sale deed dated
05.02.1977 which was in respect of the suit property after the life time of 2 nd
respondent is not valid. In the said suit in OS.No. 312/1978 the 2 nd respondent and
his son 3rd respondent now stood in this suit as 7th petitioners were called absent
and set exparty in the aforesaid old suit. They both never respond the said suit and
remain Exparty.
 16. The petitioner in OS.No. 312/1981 filed the suit with a prayer to
declare the sale deed as Null and Void and will not bind the respondent before or
after the life time of the 2nd respondent. Therefore the decree in OS.No. 312/1981
might have been enforceable only after the life time of the 7 th petitioner
Chakrapani.

17. In the present suit the petitioner’s set forth the prayer for recovery of
possession of the suit properties, but they have not pleaded this crucial aspect in
the petition averments that on what date, which month and year this respondent
Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property. For recovery of possession, the
petitioner must prove that they, filed the suit within the stipulated period to with in
12 years. It at all any mention of date, month and year was found in the petition
averment, about the entry in the suit property of the Rayar Naidu it will
incorporate the limitation and established that this limitation has been saved. But

..5..

the petitioners has not whispered any word in the petition that on what date, month
and year, the Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property.

18. This respondent draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over the
reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the earlier suit number OS.No. 312/2981.
They never sought the relief of recovery of possession as a prayer and they ought
not set forth in the earlier suit where the relief was available very much at the time
of filing the earlier suit. But the relief sought for in the earlier suit was “only to
declare the sale deed as Null and Void and for permanent injunction” alone.
Hence with the said prayer of recovery of possession the petitioners cannot file the
present suit and the suit is not maintainable.

19. The respondents humbly draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over
ORDER II – RULE 2 OF C IVIL PROCEDURE CODE

RULE 2 (1) of CPC Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the
petitioner is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action but a petitioner may
relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the Jurisdiction.

RULE 2 (2) of CPC: Relinquishment of part of claim:- Where the petitioner

omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes any portion of claim, he
shall not after wards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.
RULE 2 (3) of CPC: Omission to sue for one of Several reliefs:- A person
entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for
all or any of such reliefs but he omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for
all such reliefs, he shall not after wards sue for any reliefs so omitted.

“As such in this case, the petitioners in their earlier suit in OS.No.
312/1981 they have not sought for any relief to sue for recovery of possession”.

“The petitioners who filed the present suit for same cause of action have
not obtained any leave of this Hon’ble Court as stiputed in Order II Rule 2(3)
of CPC to sought for the afore said relief”.

20. This respondents draw this Hon’ble Court’s kind attention over the
Exhibits marked by the Rayar Naidu – Ex B8 - in OS,No. 312/81. The cursery
perusal of the said Ex-P8 shows that the respondents father Rayar Naidu initially
mortgaged the property in the year 1974. The said Rayar Naidu purchased the very

..6..

same property on the strength of the sale deed in the year 1977. As such the said
Rayar Naidu was in the possession of the property right from the year 1974, as a
mortagager. He become the absolute owner in the year 1977 by purchasing the
same on the strength of a registered sale deed. The petitioners filed the suit
OS.No. 312/1981 in the year 1981. But there was no mention on what date, month
and year the said Rayar Naidu has entered in to the suit property. The petitioners
in the suit have not sought for a relief of recovery of possession in the old suit in
OS.No. 312/1981. In the present suit also there is no mention about on what date,
month and year the said Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property. As per their
candid admission in the petition itself, the Respondents and their father from 1977
were in possession and enjoyment in the suit property. But the Exhibit P8
discloses Rayar Naidu’s entry even in the year 1974 as a mortgage. The
respondants reserve their right to file additional counter in future if at all they left
out any of the facts.

21. The respondents submit that the petitioners herein filed the petition
only to give trouble and annoyance to respondents and further they filed the
petitionand suit by suppressing all the material facts. Further the petitioners have
not come to the court with clean hands, there is no balance of convenience lies on
the side of the petitioners but on contra if the petition is allowed and the injunction
is granted to the petitioner as prayed, the respondants will be put to irreparable loss
and hardship which cannot be compensated by money value.

22. Therefore viewed from any angle the present petition is devoid of
merits and bone fide and the same is deserves to be dismissed with the exemply
costs of this respondents.

23. It therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss
the petition with the exemptory cost of this respondents and grant such other relief
or relief’s as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances
of the case.

Advocate for the 1st respondent 1st Respondent

..7..

Verification

I Krishnamoorthy ist respondent here by declare and states that the facts
stated above are absolutety true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I sign
this verification at Thiruvannamalai on 02.08.2021.

1st Respondent

The Counter filed by the 1st respondent is adopted by the other respondents.

Advocate for the Respondent.

 IN THE COURT THE DISTRICT JUDGE IF TIRUVANNAMALAI
IA.No. 42/2014 in OS.No. 16/2014

1. Mr. Murugan
2. Mr. S. Sasikumar
3. Mrs. C. Vasuki
4. Mrs. K. Bhavani
5. Mrs. K. Meenachi
6. Mr. K. Ram prasaath
7. Mr. M. Chakrapani
8. Mrs. C. Krishnaveni
9. Mr. C. Jayakumar …Petitioner/Plaintiffs

/Vs/

1. Mr. R. Krishnamorthi
2. Mr. R. Devendran
3. Mr. R. Sekar
4. Mr. R. Ravi (Died)
5. Mr. R. Gandhi
6. Mrs. R. Sarsvathi
7. Mr. R. Muralidharan
8. Mr. R. Skaylab Babu
9. Mr. R. Prabhu …Respondents/Defendants

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st RESPONDENT

01. The Petition filed by Petitioner for grant of temporary injunction

restraining the respondents not to alienate and encumber of the petitioner
mentioned property till the disposal of the suit and in the menwhile grant an add
interim order in the like manner against the respondents till the disposal of the
application with the petitioner’s peaceful possession is false, frivolous, vexatious

..2..

and is unsustainable either in law or on facts and deserves to be dismissed in

liminie.

02. This respondent does not admits any of the allegations contained in
the affidavit save those that are specifically admitted herein and puts the petitioner
to strict proof of each and every one of them.

03. The respondent vehemently denied the averments in this petition as

false and vexatious and invented and except those are specifically admitted by
them rest of the same has to be proved by the petitioners very strictly. Primafacie
no case has been made out as against this respondents and the suit is not
maintainable. The petition filed will not substantiate either on law or on facts.
04. This respondent denied the averments in para no 3 of the petition that
one Mrs. Kanniammal executed a settlement deed and settled the properties in
favour of the petitioners 1 to 4 along with deceased Kartheepan and their father 7 th
petitioners as per the registered document dated at 18.07.1968 by creating the life
interest in favour of 7th petitioners Chakrapani and subsequently infavour of grand
son and daughters are all absolutely false, vexatious and invented and put the
petitioners to strict proof of the same.

05. The respondent vehemently denied the averments stated in para 3 of

the petition as false that since the properties sold to the present defendants father
Rayar Naidu by 7th petitioners namely Chakarapani udaiyar, the petitioners 1 to 4
along with deceased Kartheeban the father of the petitioner 4 to 6 filed the suit
OS.No. 31/1978 to declare that the sale deed executed by 7 th petitioner
Chakarapani is not binding and which was culminated in to a decree on 13.09.1993
and put the petitioner to strict proof of the same.

06. It is true that the father of the respondents Rayar Naidu filed an appeal
in AS. No. 31 of 1994 before the subordinate judge of Tiruvannamalai which was
also dismissed on 28.03.1995.

07. It is true that again the un successful appellant Rayar Naidu filed
second appeal before the High Court of the judicature Madras, in SA.No 382 of
1996 and during the pendency of the appeal the appellant Rayar Naidu died and
present respondents in the suit have been brought on record as legal representatives

..3..

of the deceased appellant Rayar Naidu and the Honourable High Court of Madras
also dismissed the second appeal on 23.12.2011.

08. The respondents vehemently denied the averments in para 5 of the

petition that the petitioners right over the property have been declared by the court
from lower court to appellate court and the alleged sale deed in the name of present
respondent father Rayar Naidu was declared as null and void and the petitioner has
to prove the same. The lower court never delare their right over the suit property
and declare only the sale as null and void. This respondents preyar an SLP before
the Hon’ble Supreme court of India and the same is pending with.

09. The respondents denied the averment as absolutely false as that the
petitioner have got absolute right over the properties and they are entitled to take
possession of the properties after the life time of the estate holder chakrapani
udayar who is the 7 th petitioner here in. It is further false to state that since
the alleged sale infavour of deceased Rayar Naidu was declared as “Null and
Void” by judicial process the respondents have no right to be in possession of
property and the respondents are bound to surrender possession to the petitioners
and it’s false to state that the respondents possession has no legal sanction at all.
 10. It is squarely false to state that the respondents who were put in to the
possession of the properties on the basis of invalid alienation have no right to be in
possession of the properties. It is unwarranted to them by asking to surrender back
possession of the property to the petitioners herein immediately and this petitioners
cannot claim a such right,Since they never raised it before the trial court in OS.No.
312/1981. Further this respondants are in peaceful possession of the schedule
mentioned property since from 1979 as per the mortgage deed.

11. It is false to state that the petitioners on several times approached the
respondents to vacate and deliver actual physical possession of properties and it is
also false to state that the respondents have not come forward to surrender actual
physical possession of property. Thid petitioner are no such right and they cannot
approach this respondents as such to vacate and to deliver and the petitioners have
no right to file the suit before this Hon’ble Court for appropriate reliefs. Since they
never raised it at the time of filing the suit in the year 1981.

..4..

12. The petitioners burked the real facts and the petitioners have not
approached the Court with clean hands.

13. The respondents have obtained leave of the Honble supreme court of
India in SLP.No and the same is pending before the supreme
court.

14. The prayer of the petitioner to directing this respondents to deliver the
actual physical possession of property herein immediately by vaccating the suit
property is absolutely wrong and the respondents are not having any bound and
duty to comply the demands of the petitioners.

The true facts are as follow:-

15. The schedule mentioned property originally belongs to one

Kanniyammal. The 3rd petitioners husband and respondents 4 and 5’s father
namely Kartheeban and petitioner no 2, 4 and 5 have filed a vexatious suit as
against the father of the respondents Rayar Naidu and against the 7 th respondent
and 9th respondent in OS.No. 312/1987 in which they stick on a settlement deed
dated 18.07.1968 and prayed the said court to declare that the sale deed dated
05.02.1977 which was in respect of the suit property after the life time of 2 nd
respondent is not valid. In the said suit in OS.No. 312/1978 the 2 nd respondent and
his son 3rd respondent now stood in this suit as 7th petitioners were called absent
and set exparty in the aforesaid old suit. They both never respond the said suit and
remain Exparty.

16. The petitioner in OS.No. 312/1981 filed the suit with a prayer to
declare the sale deed as Null and Void and will not bind the respondent before or
after the life time of the 2nd respondent. Therefore the decree in OS.No. 312/1981
might have been enforceable only after the life time of the 7 th petitioner
Chakrapani.

17. In the present suit the petitioner’s set forth the prayer for recovery of
possession of the suit properties, but they have not pleaded this crucial aspect in
the petition averments that on what date, which month and year this respondent
Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property. For recovery of possession, the
petitioner must prove that they, filed the suit within the stipulated period to with in
12 years. It at all any mention of date, month and year was found in the petition

..5..

averment, about the entry in the suit property of the Rayar Naidu it will
incorporate the limitation and established that this limitation has been saved. But
the petitioners has not whispered any word in the petition that on what date, month
and year, the Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property.

18. This respondent draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over the
reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the earlier suit number OS.No. 312/2981.
They never sought the relief of recovery of possession as a prayer and they ought
not set forth in the earlier suit where the relief was available very much at the time
of filing the earlier suit. But the relief sought for in the earlier suit was “only to
declare the sale deed as Null and Void and for permanent injunction” alone.
Hence with the said prayer of recovery of possession the petitioners cannot file the
present suit and the suit is not maintainable.

19. The respondents humbly draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over
ORDER II – RULE 2 OF C IVIL PROCEDURE CODE
RULE 2 (1) of CPC Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the
petitioner is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action but a petitioner may
relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the Jurisdiction.

RULE 2 (2) of CPC: Relinquishment of part of claim:- Where the petitioner

omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes any portion of claim, he
shall not after wards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

RULE 2 (3) of CPC: Omission to sue for one of Several reliefs:- A person
entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for
all or any of such reliefs but he omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for
all such reliefs, he shall not after wards sue for any reliefs so omitted.

“As such in this case, the petitioners in their earlier suit in OS.No.
312/1981 they have not sought for any relief to sue for recovery of possession”.

“The petitioners who filed the present suit for same cause of action have
not obtained any leave of this Hon’ble Court as stiputed in Order II Rule 2(3)
of CPC to sought for the afore said relief”.

20. This respondents draw this Hon’ble Court’s kind attention over the
Exhibits marked by the Rayar Naidu – Ex B8 - in OS,No. 312/81. The cursery

..6..

perusal of the said Ex-P8 shows that the respondents father Rayar Naidu initially
mortgaged the property in the year 1974. The said Rayar Naidu purchased the very
same property on the strength of the sale deed in the year 1977. As such the said
Rayar Naidu was in the possession of the property right from the year 1974, as a
mortagager. He become the absolute owner in the year 1977 by purchasing the
same on the strength of a registered sale deed. The petitioners filed the suit
OS.No. 312/1981 in the year 1981. But there was no mention on what date, month
and year the said Rayar Naidu has entered in to the suit property. The petitioners
in the suit have not sought for a relief of recovery of possession in the old suit in
OS.No. 312/1981. In the present suit also there is no mention about on what date,
month and year the said Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property. As per their
candid admission in the petition itself, the Respondents and their father from 1977
were in possession and enjoyment in the suit property. But the Exhibit P8
discloses Rayar Naidu’s entry even in the year 1974 as a mortgage. The
respondants reserve their right to file additional counter in future if at all they left
out any of the facts.

21. The respondents submit that the petitioners herein filed the petition
only to give trouble and annoyance to respondents and further they filed the
petitionand suit by suppressing all the material facts. Further the petitioners have
not come to the court with clean hands, there is no balance of convenience lies on
the side of the petitioners but on contra if the petition is allowed and the injunction
is granted to the petitioner as prayed, the respondants will be put to irreparable loss
and hardship which cannot be compensated by money value.

22. Therefore viewed from any angle the present petition is devoid of
merits and bone fide and the same is deserves to be dismissed with the exemply
costs of this respondents.

23. It therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss
the petition with the exemptory cost of this respondents and grant such other relief
or relief’s as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances
of the case.

Advocate for the 1st respondent 1st Respondent

..7..

Verification

I Krishnamoorthy ist respondent here by declare and states that the facts
stated above are absolutety true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I sign
this verification at Thiruvannamalai on 02.08.2021.

1st Respondent

The Counter filed by the 1st respondent is adopted by the other respondents.

Advocate for the Respondent.

IN THE COURT THE DISTRICT JUDGE IF TIRUVANNAMALAI

IA.No. 43/2014 in OS.No. 16/2014

1. Mr. Murugan
2. Mr. S. Sasikumar
3. Mrs. C. Vasuki
4. Mrs. K. Bhavani
5. Mrs. K. Meenachi
6. Mr. K. Ram prasaath
7. Mr. M. Chakrapani
8. Mrs. C. Krishnaveni
9. Mr. C. Jayakumar …Petitioner/Plaintiffs

/Vs/
1. Mr. R. Krishnamorthi
2. Mr. R. Devendran
3. Mr. R. Sekar
4. Mr. R. Ravi (Died)
5. Mr. R. Gandhi
6. Mrs. R. Sarsvathi
7. Mr. R. Muralidharan
8. Mr. R. Skaylab Babu
9. Mr. R. Prabhu …Respondents/Defendants

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st RESPONDENT

01. The Petition filed by Petitioner for grant of temporary injunction

restraining the respondents not to induct any 3 rd party into the possession till the
disposal of the suit and in the meanwhile grant and interim order in the like manner
against the responducts till the disposal of this application with the petitioner’s
peaceful possession is false, frivolous, vexatious and is unsustainable either in law
or on facts and deserves to be dismissed in liminie.

..2..

02. This respondent does not admits any of the allegations contained in
the affidavit save those that are specifically admitted herein and puts the petitioner
to strict proof of each and every one of them.

03. The respondent vehemently denied the averments in this petition as

false and vexatious and invented and except those are specifically admitted by
them rest of the same has to be proved by the petitioners very strictly. Primafacie
no case has been made out as against this respondents and the suit is not
maintainable. The petition filed will not substantiate either on law or on facts.
04. This respondent denied the averments in para no 3 of the petition that
one Mrs. Kanniammal executed a settlement deed and settled the properties in
favour of the petitioners 1 to 4 along with deceased Kartheepan and their father 7 th
petitioners as per the registered document dated at 18.07.1968 by creating the life
interest in favour of 7th petitioners Chakrapani and subsequently infavour of grand
son and daughters are all absolutely false, vexatious and invented and put the
petitioners to strict proof of the same.

05. The respondent vehemently denied the averments stated in para 3 of

the petition as false that since the properties sold to the present defendants father
Rayar Naidu by 7th petitioners namely Chakarapani udaiyar, the petitioners 1 to 4
along with deceased Kartheeban the father of the petitioner 4 to 6 filed the suit
OS.No. 31/1978 to declare that the sale deed executed by 7 th petitioner
Chakarapani is not binding and which was culminated in to a decree on 13.09.1993
and put the petitioner to strict proof of the same.

06. It is true that the father of the respondents Rayar Naidu filed an appeal
in AS. No. 31 of 1994 before the subordinate judge of Tiruvannamalai which was
also dismissed on 28.03.1995.

07. It is true that again the un successful appellant Rayar Naidu filed
second appeal before the High Court of the judicature Madras, in SA.No 382 of
1996 and during the pendency of the appeal the appellant Rayar Naidu died and
present respondents in the suit have been brought on record as legal representatives
of the deceased appellant Rayar Naidu and the Honourable High Court of Madras
also dismissed the second appeal on 23.12.2011.

..3..

08. The respondents vehemently denied the averments in para 5 of the

petition that the petitioners right over the property have been declared by the court
from lower court to appellate court and the alleged sale deed in the name of present
respondent father Rayar Naidu was declared as null and void and the petitioner has
to prove the same. The lower court never delare their right over the suit property
and declare only the sale as null and void. This respondents preyar an SLP before
the Hon’ble Supreme court of India and the same is pending with.

09. The respondents denied the averment as absolutely false as that the
petitioner have got absolute right over the properties and they are entitled to take
possession of the properties after the life time of the estate holder chakrapani
udayar who is the 7 th petitioner here in. It is further false to state that since
the alleged sale infavour of deceased Rayar Naidu was declared as “Null and
Void” by judicial process the respondents have no right to be in possession of
property and the respondents are bound to surrender possession to the petitioners
and it’s false to state that the respondents possession has no legal sanction at all.

10. It is squarely false to state that the respondents who were put in to the
possession of the properties on the basis of invalid alienation have no right to be in
possession of the properties. It is unwarranted to them by asking to surrender back
possession of the property to the petitioners herein immediately and this petitioners
cannot claim a such right,Since they never raised it before the trial court in OS.No.
312/1981. Further this respondants are in peaceful possession of the schedule
mentioned property since from 1979 as per the mortgage deed.

11. It is false to state that the petitioners on several times approached the
respondents to vacate and deliver actual physical possession of properties and it is
also false to state that the respondents have not come forward to surrender actual
physical possession of property. Thid petitioner are no such right and they cannot
approach this respondents as such to vacate and to deliver and the petitioners have
no right to file the suit before this Hon’ble Court for appropriate reliefs. Since they
never raised it at the time of filing the suit in the year 1981.

12. The petitioners burked the real facts and the petitioners have not
approached the Court with clean hands.

..4..

13. The respondents have obtained leave of the Honble supreme court of
India in SLP.No and the same is pending before the supreme
court.

14. The prayer of the petitioner to directing this respondents to deliver the
actual physical possession of property herein immediately by vaccating the suit
property is absolutely wrong and the respondents are not having any bound and
duty to comply the demands of the petitioners.

The true facts are as follow:-

15. The schedule mentioned property originally belongs to one

Kanniyammal. The 3rd petitioners husband and respondents 4 and 5’s father
namely Kartheeban and petitioner no 2, 4 and 5 have filed a vexatious suit as
against the father of the respondents Rayar Naidu and against the 7 th respondent
and 9th respondent in OS.No. 312/1987 in which they stick on a settlement deed
dated 18.07.1968 and prayed the said court to declare that the sale deed dated
05.02.1977 which was in respect of the suit property after the life time of 2 nd
respondent is not valid. In the said suit in OS.No. 312/1978 the 2 nd respondent and
his son 3rd respondent now stood in this suit as 7th petitioners were called absent
and set exparty in the aforesaid old suit. They both never respond the said suit and
remain Exparty.

16. The petitioner in OS.No. 312/1981 filed the suit with a prayer to
declare the sale deed as Null and Void and will not bind the respondent before or
after the life time of the 2nd respondent. Therefore the decree in OS.No. 312/1981
might have been enforceable only after the life time of the 7 th petitioner
Chakrapani.

17. In the present suit the petitioner’s set forth the prayer for recovery of
possession of the suit properties, but they have not pleaded this crucial aspect in
the petition averments that on what date, which month and year this respondent
Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property. For recovery of possession, the
petitioner must prove that they, filed the suit within the stipulated period to with in
12 years. It at all any mention of date, month and year was found in the petition
averment, about the entry in the suit property of the Rayar Naidu it will
incorporate the limitation and established that this limitation has been saved. But

..5..

the petitioners has not whispered any word in the petition that on what date, month
and year, the Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property.

18. This respondent draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over the
reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the earlier suit number OS.No. 312/2981.
They never sought the relief of recovery of possession as a prayer and they ought
not set forth in the earlier suit where the relief was available very much at the time
of filing the earlier suit. But the relief sought for in the earlier suit was “only to
declare the sale deed as Null and Void and for permanent injunction” alone.
Hence with the said prayer of recovery of possession the petitioners cannot file the
present suit and the suit is not maintainable.

19. The respondents humbly draw this Hon’ble Court kind attention over
ORDER II – RULE 2 OF C IVIL PROCEDURE CODE
RULE 2 (1) of CPC Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the
petitioner is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action but a petitioner may
relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the Jurisdiction.

RULE 2 (2) of CPC: Relinquishment of part of claim:- Where the petitioner

omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes any portion of claim, he
shall not after wards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

RULE 2 (3) of CPC: Omission to sue for one of Several reliefs:- A person
entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for
all or any of such reliefs but he omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for
all such reliefs, he shall not after wards sue for any reliefs so omitted.

“As such in this case, the petitioners in their earlier suit in OS.No.
312/1981 they have not sought for any relief to sue for recovery of possession”.

“The petitioners who filed the present suit for same cause of action have
not obtained any leave of this Hon’ble Court as stiputed in Order II Rule 2(3)
of CPC to sought for the afore said relief”.

20. This respondents draw this Hon’ble Court’s kind attention over the
Exhibits marked by the Rayar Naidu – Ex B8 - in OS,No. 312/81. The cursery
perusal of the said Ex-P8 shows that the respondents father Rayar Naidu initially
mortgaged the property in the year 1974. The said Rayar Naidu purchased the very

..6..

same property on the strength of the sale deed in the year 1977. As such the said
Rayar Naidu was in the possession of the property right from the year 1974, as a
mortagager. He become the absolute owner in the year 1977 by purchasing the
same on the strength of a registered sale deed. The petitioners filed the suit
OS.No. 312/1981 in the year 1981. But there was no mention on what date, month
and year the said Rayar Naidu has entered in to the suit property. The petitioners
in the suit have not sought for a relief of recovery of possession in the old suit in
OS.No. 312/1981. In the present suit also there is no mention about on what date,
month and year the said Rayar Naidu entered into the suit property. As per their
candid admission in the petition itself, the Respondents and their father from 1977
were in possession and enjoyment in the suit property. But the Exhibit P8
discloses Rayar Naidu’s entry even in the year 1974 as a mortgage. The
respondants reserve their right to file additional counter in future if at all they left
out any of the facts.

21. The respondents submit that the petitioners herein filed the petition
only to give trouble and annoyance to respondents and further they filed the
petitionand suit by suppressing all the material facts. Further the petitioners have
not come to the court with clean hands, there is no balance of convenience lies on
the side of the petitioners but on contra if the petition is allowed and the injunction
is granted to the petitioner as prayed, the respondants will be put to irreparable loss
and hardship which cannot be compensated by money value.

22. Therefore viewed from any angle the present petition is devoid of
merits and bone fide and the same is deserves to be dismissed with the exemply
costs of this respondents.

23. It therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss
the petition with the exemptory cost of this respondents and grant such other relief
or relief’s as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances
of the case.

Advocate for the 1st respondent 1st Respondent

..7..

Verification

I Krishnamoorthy ist respondent here by declare and states that the facts
stated above are absolutety true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I sign
this verification at Thiruvannamalai on 02.08.2021.

1st Respondent

The Counter filed by the 1st respondent is adopted by the other respondents.

Advocate for the Respondent.