E.JeevanandamS/o.Mr.Ellappan v. Mrs.Rajalakshmi SunkavallyW/o.Mr.V.K.P.Sunkavally, No.7, Mohan Kumaramangalam Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In view of the same, the suit stands dismissed as abated
Provisions considered
Judgment
CS No. 216 of 2010IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 21-08-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYANCS No. 216 of 2010E.JeevanandamS/o.Mr.Ellappan, No.14,Main Road, Alapakkam, Chennai-116.Plaintiff(s)VsMrs. Rajalakshmi SunkavallyW/o.Mr.V.K.P.Sunkavally, No.7, Mohan Kumaramangalam Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.Defendant(s)Prayer: This Civil Suit has been filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read with Order VII Rule I of CPC, praying for a judgment and decree,(a) declaring that the notice dated 25.06.2007 and the consequential rejoinder dated 29.08.2007 issued by the defendant seeking to cancel the agreement/MOU dated 05.07.2002 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, regarding the suit schedule property, as illegal and not enforceable.b) granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant or any person claiming under the defendant from executing any deed or action disturbing the plaintiff's right under the MOU/agreement dated 05.07.2002 with respect to the suit schedule property or in any manner encumbering or dealing with the suit schedule property by executing sale deed, mortgage deed, agreement for sale or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CS No.
Operative part
216 of 2010development or in any other manner, contrary to the right of the plaintiff.c) Mandatory injunction directing the defendant to comply with the defendant's obligations under clauses 9 & 10 of the MOU dated 05.07.2002 between the plaintiff and the defendant, and enable the plaintiff to purchase the suit property within 180 days from the date of finality of the pending litigation in respect of the suit property.d) To pay the cost of the suit. For Plaintiff(s):Mr.S.ThankasivanFor Defendant(s):Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Senior Counsel for Mr.C.ThiagarajanJUDGMENTThe defendant had died on 05.06.2024. The application to bring on record the legal representatives and to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the abatement and to condone the delay of 330 days to set aside the abatement had been dismissed by this Court in A.Nos.907, 4126 & 4127 of 2025. In view of the same, the suit stands dismissed as abated.
No Costs.21-08-2025sliIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet: YesNeutral Citation: Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CS No. 216 of 2010ToMrs. Rajalakshmi SunkavallyW/o.Mr.V.K.P.Sunkavally, No.7, Mohan Kumaramangalam Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CS No. 216 of 2010C.V.KARTHIKEYAN J.sliCS No. 216 of 2010 21-08-2025(2/2)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the same, the suit stands dismissed as abated
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.