Madras High Court
OSA/82/2023 of N. SAVITHRI Vs S. GEETHA on 13 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR
OSA No. 82 of 2023 and CMP.Nos.9758 of 2023
CNR: {HCMA012093322022}
N. Savithri
W/O R.K.Padmanaban
Residing At Plot No.3, 2nd Main Road,
Sri Karpagambal Nagar, Thiruverkadu, Chennai Tamil Nadu -77.
Now currently at No.12, ESK Street, Cylde North, Victoria 3978, Australia.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. S. Geetha
2. M.G.Sundaramurthy
3. R.Srinivasan
..Respondent(s)
Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of OS Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 17.10.2022 made in O.A.No. 466 of 2022 in C.S.No. 163 of 2022.
For Appellant(s):
Ms.Archita Anish
for Mr.S.R.Raghunathan
For Respondent(s):
No appearance for R1 and R2
Ms.D.Monika for
Mr.J.Vivekanandan for R3
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.) Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the application filed in O.A.No.466 of 2022 seeking injunction to protect the possession of the appellant.
2. The suit has been originally laid by the plaintiff for declaration of title and other reliefs. Originally the property to the extent of 26 grounds was allotted to C.Nagaiah Naidu, later the said property was further divided into two equal parts of 13 grounds to the plaintiff as well as the first defendant, who are sisters vide partition deed dated 29.04.1972. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant has already dealt her entire share which was allotted to her in the partition deed, that apart, she had also sold the property to various persons. Even after the sale of the entire property, the first defendant has again sold the property to the third defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff has sought for declaration of title and also for setting aside the settlement deed and other deeds executed by the first defendant. The learned Single Judge taking note of the fact that since the suit has been filed for declaration of title, injuncted the third respondent from alienating the property till the disposal of the suit vide O.A.No.465 of 2022. Challenging the dismissal of the application in O.A.No.466 of 2022, the present appeal has been filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as the learned counsel for the third respondent and perused the materials placed on record.
4. Now the point arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled for any injunction?
5. It is an admitted fact that the suit property is a vacant site. Admittedly, the third defendant has purchased the property and the settlement deed is questioned after 12 years of its execution, therefore, when the land being a vacant site, possession follows title. Further, no other materials whatsoever is filed, therefore, we are of the view that as a matter of right, plaintiff cannot seek injunction without establishing the title. The learned Single Judge has rightly protected the plaintiff’s right by injuncting the third respondent not to alienate the suit property pending the suit. In such view of the matter, we do not find any merits in this appeal.
6. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. It is for the appellant to work out her remedy in the trial. (N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dhk
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR, J. dhk OSA No. 82 of 2023 13-10-2026