K. Kothandaraman Vs. Mathivanan and

K. Kothandaraman vs Mathivanan And; K. Gopalarathinam

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 23, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/848348

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/848348
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: M. Jaichandren, J.
Decided On: Mar 23, 2010
Case Number: C.R.P. (PD) No. 895 of 2009 and M.P. No. 1 of 2009
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of th...

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

K. Kothandaraman

Advocate A. Palaniappan, Adv.

Respondent

Mathivanan And; K. Gopalarathinam

Advocate V. Bhiman, Adv.

Excerpt

- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16].....filed by the petitioner.4. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that, the order of injunction, dated 09.04.2008, made in i.a. no. 129 of 2008, in o.s. no. 22 of 2008, granted by the learned additional district munsif, poonamallee, is a conditional order, by which the petitioner had been directed to pay a sum of rs. 1,000/-, per month, to the respondents. even though the petitioner had been complying with the conditional order issued in his favour, the subordinate court, poonamallee, had vacated the order of injunction granted by the additional district munsif court, poonamallee, by its order, dated 29.12.2008, by allowing c.m.a. no. 9 of 2008.5. even though the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the possession of the property by the petitioner is illegal possession, this court is not inclined to decide the said issue, at this stage. it is for the trial court to give its finding on the said issue. in such circumstances, the order of the subordinate judge, poonamalle, dated 29.12.2008, made in c.m.a. no. 9 of 2008, is set aside. consequently the order of the trial court, dated 09.04.2008, made in o.s. no. 22 of 2008, shall stand revived, on the condition that the petitioner pays a sum of rs. 20,000/- to the respondents, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. the learned judge, additional district munsif court, poonamallee, is directed to hear and dispose of o.s. no. 22 of 2008, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.this civil revision petition is ordered accordingly. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

M. Jaichandren, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to set aside the fair and Decretal order, dated 29.12.2008, made in C.M.A. No. 9 of 2008, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, reversing the fair and decreetal order, dated 09.04.2008, made in I.A. No. 129 of 2008, in O.S. No. 22 of 2008, by the Additional District Munsif Court, Poonamallee.

2. The petitioner herein had filed a suit, in O.S. No. 22 of 2008, for bare injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The petitioner had filed an Interlocutory Application, in I.A. No. 129 of 2008, praying for an interim order of injunction. The trial Court, by its order, dated 09.04.2008, had granted an order of interim injunction. Thereafter, the interim order granted had been made absolute.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents had filed an appeal before the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee. The Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, by its order, dated 29.12.2008, allowed the appeal by dismissing I.A. No. 129 of 2008, stating that the petitioner, who is a co-sharer in the property concerned, cannot pray for an order of injunction. It had also stated that even though the petitioner had claimed the share of the property in question, by way of an unregistered family arrangement, the said document had not been marked in support of the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner.

4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that, the order of injunction, dated 09.04.2008, made in I.A. No. 129 of 2008, in O.S. No. 22 of 2008, granted by the learned Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee, is a conditional order, by which the petitioner had been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/-, per month, to the respondents. Even though the petitioner had been complying with the conditional order issued in his favour, the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, had vacated the order of injunction granted by the Additional District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, by its order, dated 29.12.2008, by allowing C.M.A. No. 9 of 2008.

5. Even though the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the possession of the property by the petitioner is illegal possession, this Court is not inclined to decide the said issue, at this stage. It is for the trial Court to give its finding on the said issue. In such circumstances, the order of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamalle, dated 29.12.2008, made in C.M.A. No. 9 of 2008, is set aside. Consequently the order of the trial Court, dated 09.04.2008, made in O.S. No. 22 of 2008, shall stand revived, on the condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the respondents, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The learned Judge, Additional District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, is directed to hear and dispose of O.S. No. 22 of 2008, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

This Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2010 Same Parties K. Kothandaraman vs Mathivanan And; K. Gopalarathinam Same Subject Property Same Judge M. Jaichandren, J.

Property Interlocutory application In accordance with law Family arrangement Subordinate Court Decretal order Not later than Interim order