ARAMANAI RAMAN CHETTIAR ANNA vs NARAYANA PADAYACHI(DIED AFTER
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 27-10-2026
Pronounced on : 05-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE THIRUMAGAL
CHANDRASEKAR
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
CNR:{HCMD010017912013}
Aramanai Raman Chettiar Annadhana Chatram
By Managing Trustee Bhadrusamy
st
(died after 1 Appeal)
A.R.Jayaraman,Managing Trustee,
S/o.Ramasamy,No.75,Sourashtra Big Street,
Kumbakonam
..Appellant / plaintiff
Vs
st
Narayana Padayachi (died After 1 Appeal)
st
Ranganthan(died after 1 appeal)
1. Manimaran (died)
S/o.Renganathan,No.27,John Selvaraj
Nagar,Kumbakonam
2. Sankar
S/o.Renganathan
No.8, Karaikkal Vahai Nadappu
Balaji Nagar
Kumbakonam
3. Tamilmaran
S/o.Renganathan
No.12, Mothilal Street
Kumbakonam
4. Suresh
S/o.Renganathan
__________
Page 1 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
Venkateswara Hotel Church Road
Kumbakonam
5. Ramesh
S/o.Renganathan
Venkateshwara Hotel Church Road
Kumbakonam
6. Murali
S/o.Renganathan
Venkateshwara Hotel Church Road
Kumbakonam
7. R.Muthulakshmi(died)
W/o.Ramanathan
Church Road
Kumbakonam
(Memo Dated 12.07.2022 filed On 15.07.2022 In
Usr No. 19052 Is Recorded, As 7th Respondent
Died, And The Respondents 8 To 14, Who Are
Already On Record, Are Recorded As Lrs Of
The Deceased 7th Respondent Vide Court Order
Dated 15.07.2022 Made In Sa(md)no.216 Of
2013 By Nssj.)
8. Asokkumar
S/o.Ramanathan
Church Road
Kumbakonam
9. R.Ravichandran
S/o.Ramanathan
Church Road
Kumbakonam
10.Mohan
S/o.Ramanathan
Church Road
Kumbakonam
11.Sekar(died)
S/o.Ramanathan
__________
Page 2 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
Church Road
Kumbakonam
Memo Dated 15.03.2022 Filed On 15.07.2022 In
Usr No.19051 Is Recorded, As 11th Respondent
Died Vide Court Order Dated 15.07.2022 Made
In Sa(md)no.216 Of 2013 By Nssj.
12.Narashimhan
S/o.Ramanathan
Church Road
Kumbakonam
13.Ganesh
S/o.Ramanathan
Church Road
Kumbakonam
14.Kala
D/o.Ramanathan
Church Road
Kumbakonam
15.Jothi
W/o.Mahalingam
Church Road
Kumbakonam
16.Geetha
D/o.Mahalingam
Church Road
Kumbakonam
17.Latha
D/o.Mahalingam
Church Road
Kumbakonam
18.Amudha
D/o.Mahalingam
Church Road
Kumbakonam
__________
Page 3 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
Punitha(died)
19.Senthilkumar
S/o.Mahalingam
Church Road
Kumbakonam
20.Rajan
D/o.Narayanasamy
Padayachi Church Road
Kumbakonam
21.M.Vimala,
W/o.Late.Manimaran,
22.M.Sneha D/o.Late.Manimaran,
23.M.Praveen,
S/O.LATE.MANIMARAN,
RESPONDENTS 21 TO 23 ARE RESIDING
AT,NO.100/5, MOTHILAL ST,
KUMBAKONAM, THANJAVUR DT.
RESPONDENTS 21 TO 23 ARE BROUGHT
ON RECORD AS LRS OF THE DECEASED R1
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 06.06.22
MADE IN CMP(MD).NOs.2680,2681 AND
2682/2019 IN SA(MD).NO.216/2013 BY NSSJ
24.P.Rama
A51, 797, Sekilar Theru, Puthiya Vitu Vasathi
Wariyam, Kumbakonam.612401
25.R.S.Shreeram
A-51, 797, Sekilar Theru, Puthiya Vitu Vasathi
Wariyam, Kumbakonam.612401
26.R.Shree Vishnu
A-51, 797, Sekilar Theru, Puthiya Vitu Vasathi
Wariyam, Kumbakonam.612401
Respondents 24 To 26 Are Brought On Record
__________
Page 4 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
As Lrs Of The Deceased 11th Respondent Vide
Court Order Dated 24/08/2022 Made In
Cmp(md).6713 And 6714 Of 2022 In
Sa(md).216/2013 By Nssj
.. Respondents / defendants
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC to set aside the
Judgment and Decree dated 07.12.2012 made in A.S.No. 19 of 2009 on
the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam confirming the
Judgment and decree dated 17.02.1999 made in O.S.No.51 of 1985 on
st
the file of the 1 Additional District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam.
For Appellant :Mr.M.V.Santharaman
For respondents : Mrs. N. Krishnaveni
for Mr. P.Thiyagarajan
for R2 to R6, 8 to 10, 12 to 26
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and
Decree dated 07.12.2012 made in A.S.No. 19 of 2009 on the file of the
Principal Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam confirming the Judgment and
st
decree dated 17.02.1999 made in O.S.No.51 of 1985 on the file of the 1
Additional District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam.
__________
Page 5 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property, consisting of a
thatched house, belongs to the plaintiff Trust, and that the defendant was
inducted as a tenant under a rental agreement dated 04.12.1960, agreeing
to pay an annual rent of Rs.50/- in two instalments of Rs.25/- each,
th th
payable on 15 February and 15 August every year. According to the
plaintiff, the defendant committed default in payment of rent from the
year 1977 onwards, resulting in arrears of Rs.400/- for the period from
1977 to 1984. However, the plaintiff restricted the claim to Rs.150/-
towards three years' arrears of rent. The plaintiff further contended that,
after issuing a notice dated 25.06.1984, the tenancy was terminated by a
subsequent notice dated 16.08.1984, calling upon the defendant to vacate
and hand over possession of the suit property. It was further contended
that the suit was not barred under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Cultivating Tenants Protection Act or other rent control enactments, as
the suit property belonged to a Trust. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit
seeking recovery of possession, arrears of rent and future mesne profits.
(ii) The defendant resisted the suit contending that the plaintiff had
not established his title over the suit property or his authority as
__________
Page 6 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
Managing Trustee to institute the proceedings. The defendant denied the
execution of the rental agreement dated 04.12.1960 and contended that
the same was a fabricated document. According to the defendant, he had
been in possession of the property from the year 1947 and had
constructed a residential house thereon in or about 1949, which was
subsequently enlarged with the consent of the then landowner, by
spending considerable amounts. The defendant further contended that he
had regularly paid the agreed annual rent of Rs.50/- through the agents of
the landowner, namely, Govindaraj, Natarajan and Balan, up to the year
1983, and that no arrears of rent were due. It was also contended that the
defendant was entitled to the benefits available under Section 9 of the
Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act, and that the suit was barred by
limitation and was not maintainable. The defendant further disputed the
validity of the notice terminating the tenancy, the plaintiff's entitlement to
recover possession and the correctness of the description of the suit
property.
(iii) During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses were
examined as PW.1 and PW.2 and Exs. A1 to A5 were marked. On the
side of the defendant, two witnesses were examined as DW.1 and DW.2
and Exs.B1 to B15 were marked.
__________
Page 7 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
(iv) Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, the
Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff
preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by the First Appellate
Court.
3. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the
appellant / plaintiff has preferred the present Second Appeal.
4. The Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on the following
substantial questions of law:-
(a) Whether the first Appellate Court can go beyond
th
the act and G.O.Ms.No.1998 Home, dated 12 August 1974
arid can hold that the suit by the Public Trust Plaintiff is
not maintainable when the same is not denied and impliedly
admitted in the written statement of the defendant?
(b) Whether the first Appellate Court without
considering the fact that the defence by the defendant is to
the effect that the plaintiff Trust is not represented by the
__________
Page 8 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
proper Trustee after the death of the Trustee who signed the
Deed of lease.
(c) Whether the suit for possession by the plaintiff
against the Tenant is rightly considered by the Courts
below?
5. Heard Mr.M.V.Santharaman, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant / plaintiff and Mrs. N. Krishnaveni, learned Senior counsel
appearing for Mr. P.Thiyagarajan for the respondents / defendants and
perused the materials available on record.
6. The case of the appellant / plaintiff is that the suit property
belongs to the appellant / plaintiff Trust and that the respondents /
defendants were inducted as tenants in respect of the said property. In
support of its claim, the appellant / plaintiff relied upon Ex.A1, a rental
agreement dated 04.12.1960, executed between the appellant / plaintiff
Trust and the respondents / defendants. As per the said agreement, the
annual rent was fixed at Rs.50/-. It is the further case of the appellant /
plaintiff that a notice dated 15.08.1984 was issued terminating the
tenancy and calling upon the respondents / defendants to deliver vacant
__________
Page 9 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
possession of the suit property. Since the respondents / defendants issued
a reply notice disputing the claim, the appellant / plaintiff Trust was
constrained to institute the suit for recovery of possession and arrears of
rent.
7. The respondents/defendants disputed the appellant / plaintiff's
claim of ownership and contended that no document had been produced
to establish that the suit property belonged to the appellant / plaintiff
Trust. It was further contended that the appellant / plaintiff had not
produced any material to establish the constitution of the Trust, the
number of trustees, the manner in which its affairs were administered or
the authority of the person who instituted the suit on behalf of the Trust.
She further contended that Ex.A1 rental agreement was a fabricated
st
document and that the 1 defendant had entered into possession of the
suit property as a tenant as early as in the year 1947. According to them,
the superstructure measuring and extent of 45’ x 60’ feet was constructed
by the first defendant at his own expense. It was also contended that the
rent had been regularly paid to the agents of the Trust, who used to
collect the same without issuing receipts. In support of their possession
and enjoyment, the respondents / defendants produced house tax receipts
relating to the period from 1976 to 1996 and sought for dismissal of the
__________
Page 10 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
suit.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff
submitted that the appellant is a Public Trust and that the suit property is
exempted from the provisions of the Rent Control Act by virtue of
Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,
1960. Therefore, the appellant / plaintiff is entitled to maintain a suit for
recovery of possession against the respondents / defendants before the
Civil Court. He further submitted that the respondents / defendants have
admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant and the payment of
annual rent of Rs.50/-. Therefore, once the tenancy is admitted, the
respondents / defendants cannot dispute the appellant / plaintiff's
entitlement to seek recovery of possession. He also contended that the
respondents / defendants had a right to seek protection under Section 9 of
the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921, subject to the
provisions of the said Act. However, by virtue of the amendment
introduced by Act 2 of 1996, the appellant / plaintiff Trust is exempted
from the applicability of the relevant provisions of the said Act. Hence,
the respondents / defendants cannot claim any statutory protection against
the appellant / plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession. In support of his
contentions he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
__________
Page 11 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
reported in 2009 (2) SCC 75 , in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Rattani and others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court considered the principles relating to the discharge of the burden of
proof in respect of admitted facts and held that, where a fact is admitted,
there is no necessity to insist upon direct evidence to prove the same.
9. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 (5) CTC 881 , in the case of S.
Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission wherein this
Court considered the applicability of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants'
Protection Act, as amended by Act 2 of 1996, to religious institutions and
religious public charities. The learned counsel further placed reliance
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.2928 of 2014 , in the case of Shivanna and Others v. B.S.
Puttamadaiah (Dead) through LRs, to contend that the Court is
empowered to mould the relief taking into consideration subsequent
events.
10. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the
respondents / defendants submitted that the appellant / plaintiff had failed
to establish its title and ownership over the suit property. Though the
appellant / plaintiff claimed that the property belonged to the Trust, no
__________
Page 12 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
document was produced to establish the constitution of the Trust, its
nature, the particulars of the trustees or the authority under which the suit
had been instituted. She further submitted that the appellant / plaintiff had
also failed to establish the authority of the person representing the Trust,
particularly in view of the death of the Managing Trustee who had
executed the rental agreement. The learned Senior counsel further
contended that Ex.A1 rental agreement was rightly disbelieved by the
Courts below, particularly in view of the admissions elicited from P.W.1
during cross-examination. It was also submitted that the respondents /
defendants had been in possession of the property from the year 1947 and
had constructed the superstructure at their own expense. The house tax
receipts produced by the respondents / defendants would establish their
long-standing possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, in the
absence of acceptable evidence establishing the appellant / plaintiff's right
to seek recovery of possession, the concurrent findings of the Courts
below do not warrant interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. In support of their contentions, the learned Senior counsel
appearing for the respondents / defendants relied upon the following
judgments:
(i) The Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in,
__________
Page 13 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
reported in (1996) 3 SCC 392 in the case of Ramanuja Naidu v. V.
Kanniah Naidu and Another.
(ii) The Judgment of this Court reported in 2019 (1) MLJ 301 in
the case of Ayapadi Chavadi Dharmam, Private Family Trust vs.
Habibunnisa,
11. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the
appellant / plaintiff Trust has established its entitlement to seek recovery
of possession of the suit property from the respondents / defendants and
whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below suffer from any
perversity or legal infirmity warranting interference under Section 100
CPC.
12. It is the specific case of the appellant / plaintiff that the suit
property belongs to the Trust and that the respondents / defendants were
inducted as tenants under Ex.A1 rental agreement dated 04.12.1960.
Though the appellant / plaintiff relies upon the said document to establish
the jural relationship between the parties, the Courts below have
concurrently found that the appellant / plaintiff failed to establish its
claim through acceptable oral and documentary evidence. It is relevant
__________
Page 14 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
to note that the respondents / defendants have admitted their occupation
of the suit property as tenants and have also admitted the annual rent of
Rs.50/-. However, the respondents / defendants have disputed the
genuineness of Ex.A1 and contended that they entered into possession as
early as in the year 1947. They have further asserted that the
superstructure was constructed by them and that they have been regularly
paying the rent to the agents of the Trust.
13. In this regard, the admission of the respondents / defendants
regarding the tenancy and the payment of rent assumes significance. The
learned counsel for the appellant / plaintiff has relied upon the judgment
reported in 2009 (2) SCC 75 , contending that admitted facts need not be
proved by direct evidence. There can be no quarrel with the settled
proposition that facts admitted by the parties need not be independently
proved. However, such admission has to be considered in its proper
context. The admission of the landlord-tenant relationship by itself would
not dispense with the necessity of establishing the authority of the person
instituting the suit on behalf of the Trust, particularly when such authority
and the constitution of the Trust have been specifically disputed.
14. The appellant / plaintiff has also contended that the suit
property is exempted from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings
__________
Page 15 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, under Section 29 of the said Act. He
has further relied upon the amendment introduced by Act 2 of 1996 to the
Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921, and contended that the
respondents / defendants are not entitled to claim the protection available
under Section 9 of the said Act. Though the question of statutory
exemption from the provisions of the Rent Control Act and the
applicability of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act may have a
bearing on the rights and remedies available to the parties, such statutory
exemptions cannot, by themselves, establish the appellant / plaintiff's title
or its authority to institute the suit on behalf of the Trust. The appellant /
plaintiff is required to establish its entitlement to maintain the
proceedings through competent and acceptable evidence.
15. A perusal of the evidence reveals that the appellant / plaintiff
has not produced sufficient materials to establish the constitution and
nature of the Trust, the particulars of its trustees and the manner in which
its affairs are administered. Further, no satisfactory evidence has been
placed before the Court to establish the authority of the person who
instituted and prosecuted the suit on behalf of the Trust. It is also
relevant to note that the suit was instituted by Ramanathaswamy in his
capacity as Managing Trustee. After his demise, his brother Bhadrusamy
__________
Page 16 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
continued the proceedings. However, no satisfactory material has been
produced to establish that Bhadrusamy was duly authorised by the Trust
to prosecute the suit. No resolution of the Trust authorising him to
continue the proceedings has been placed before the Court. Further, the
legal representatives of the deceased Managing Trustee have not been
impleaded, nor has any satisfactory explanation been offered for their
non-impleadment.
16. In this context, the judgment relied upon by the respondents /
defenants in Ayapadi Chavadi Dharmam’s case, assumes relevance. In
the said decision, this Court considered the necessity of establishing the
authority of the person representing the Trust and the requirement of
impleading necessary trustees in proceedings instituted on behalf of the
Trust. It was held that, in the absence of sufficient material establishing
the authority of the person prosecuting the proceedings and the proper
representation of the Trust, the findings of the Courts below cannot be
interfered with in a Second Appeal. In the present case also, the appellant
/ plaintiff has failed to establish through acceptable evidence the
constitution of the Trust, the particulars of its trustees and the authority of
the person who prosecuted the suit. The mere assertion that the suit
property belongs to the Trust cannot substitute the requirement of
establishing the legal capacity of the person instituting the proceedings.
__________
Page 17 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
17. Further, the respondents / defendants have produced house tax
receipts relating to the period from 1976 to 1996 to substantiate their
possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Though payment of
property tax, by itself, may not establish title, the said documents are
relevant to consider the nature and continuity of the respondents /
defendants possession, particularly when they have contended that they
constructed the superstructure at their own expense.
18. The contention of the appellant / plaintiff that the respondents /
defendants are tenants and, therefore, liable to surrender possession upon
termination of the tenancy also requires consideration in the light of the
evidence available on record. The appellant / plaintiff has relied upon the
notice dated 15.08.1984 terminating the tenancy. However, the
termination of tenancy alone would not entitle the appellant / plaintiff to a
decree for possession unless its entitlement to seek such relief through a
duly authorised representative is established.
19. The judgment relied upon by the appellant in Shivanna’s case
with regard to the power of the Court to mould the relief on the basis of
subsequent events, does not advance the case of the appellant / plaintiff in
__________
Page 18 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
the absence of proof of its foundational entitlement to the relief sought
for and Ramanuja Naidu’s case which was relied upon by the
respondents / defendants, has also been considered. However, the
determination of the present appeal ultimately rests upon the failure of the
appellant / plaintiff Trust to establish the necessary facts and legal
authority to maintain the suit on behalf of the Trust.
20. As regards the claim for arrears of rent, the appellant / plaintiff
has restricted its claim for a period of three years and sought recovery of
a sum of Rs.400/-. Though the annual rent of Rs.50/- is not seriously
disputed, the appellant / plaintiff has not placed satisfactory evidence to
establish the arrears claimed. The assertion that the respondents /
defendants had not paid rent, coupled with the absence of rent receipts or
other acceptable supporting materials, is insufficient to grant the
monetary relief claimed, particularly when the respondents / defendants
have specifically contended that rent was regularly paid to the agents of
the Trust.
21. On an overall consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence, this Court finds that the appellant / plaintiff has failed to
establish the necessary facts to sustain the suit for recovery of possession
__________
Page 19 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
and arrears of rent. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 100 CPC is confined to substantial questions of law. This
Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact merely because
another view is possible. Unless such findings are shown to be perverse,
contrary to the evidence on record or based upon an erroneous application
of law, interference in a Second Appeal is not warranted.
22. In the present case, the appellant / plaintiff has not
demonstrated any perversity or legal infirmity in the concurrent findings
of the Courts below. The failure to establish the constitution of the Trust,
the authority of the person representing it and the entitlement to seek the
reliefs claimed is fatal to the appellant / plaintiff's case. Therefore, this
Court finds no valid ground to interfere with the judgments and decrees
passed by the Courts below.
23. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed, confirming the
judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. There shall be no order
as to costs.
05-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
__________
Page 20 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
T. RAJAPRABA
To
1. The Principal Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam
st
2. The 1 Additional District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam.
3. The Section Officer
VR Section
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai.
THIRUMAGAL CHANDRASEKAR, J.
T. RAJAPRABA
SA(MD) No. 216 of 201
__________
Page 21 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )
2026:MHC:4463
SA(MD) No. 216 of 2013
05-11-2026
__________
Page 22 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:34:16 pm )