Madras High Court
SA/144/2018 of N. MANOKARAN Vs KASTHURI on 4 November 2026
SA No. 144 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.KARTHIKEYAN
SA No. 144 of 2018
CNR:{HCMA010158192018}
and
CMP No. 3570 of 2018
1. N. Manokaran
2. N. Dhanasekaran
..Appellants
Vs
Kasthuri
..Respondent
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC praying to set aside the decree and judgment passed in A.S. No. 259/2009, dated 15.06.2017 on the file of the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the decree and judgment passed in O.S. No. 7233/1995, dated 30.06.2008 on the file of the learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.
For Appellants :
Mr. M.J. Srinivas
For Respondent :
No appearance
SA No. 144 of 2018
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
The defendants before the trial Court have come up with the present second appeal on the following substantial questions of law: “(a) Whether the Courts below are right in granting decree for permanent injunction when the case of the plaintiff is that the vacant land measuring 28 feet by 2 feet on the western side belongs to the plaintiff is not substantiated by any material or evidence?
(b) Whether the Courts below are right in granting decree for mandatory injunction when the case of the plaintiff is that land measuring 1 feet by 20 feet on the southern side of the plaintiff's house belongs to her is not substantiated by any material or evidence?
(c) Whether the Courts below failed to frame proper issue on the basis of relief claimed and give definite finding on the question of possession?
(d) Whether the Courts below are right in holding that the schedule property given in the plaint and description of the property by Advocate Commissioner in his report is one and the same without considering the difference in measurement, is justifiable in law?
(e) Whether the Courts below have failed to consider that the case of the plaintiff that the land measuring 28 by 2 feet on the western side and 20 feet by one feet on the southern side of the plaintiff's house belongs to her is belied by the report of Advocate Commissioner by holding that these lands are common pathway?”
2. When the matter is listed today for final hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants represented that the defendants have already vacated and handed over the possession to the plaintiff i.e., the respondent herein. Therefore, he seeks permission of this Court to withdraw
SA No. 144 of 2018
the present second appeal. He also made an endorsement to that effect.
3. Considering the said position, this Court is inclined to accord its permission to withdraw the second appeal. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed as withdrawn without answering the substantial questions of law raised in this second appeal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 04-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SRM To
1. The II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
SA No. 144 of 2018
S.KARTHIKEYAN J. SRM SA No. 144 of 2018 04-11-2026