MEMORANDUM OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL

(UNDER SECTION 96 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE)

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT, MADURAI

(Appellate Side Jurisdiction)

A.S.(MD)No. of 2023
In
O.S.No. 84 of 2015
(On the file of the Learned II Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli)

1. Varatharajan
2. Dharmarajan
3. Krishnarajan
4. Santha .. Appellants/ Defendants 1,4,5,6

Vs.
5. Nagarajan .. Respondent No.1/ Plaintiff
6. Thiyagarajan
7. Soundarrajan …. Respondents /Defendants 2,3

The address for services of all notices and processes on the

petitioner is that of her Counsels M/s. R.Manoharan, S. Rengasamy,
M. Nila, M. Pozhilan, O.R. Gokul Abimanyu, N. Manikandan, Advocates
having office at Plot No. 577, first floor, 3rd Cross Street (West), K.K.
Nagar, Madurai - 625 020.

The address for service of all notices and processes on the

respondents are the same as stated above.

The appellant above named begs to prefer this Memorandum of

Grounds of Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated
01.03.2024 passed in O.S.No.378 of 2015 on the file of the Learned
Additional Sub Court, Madurai on the following among the other
GROUNDS
1) The judgment and decree of the Court below are completely
contrary to law, weight of evidence and the probabilities of the
case.

2) The assumptions made, the presumptions drawn and the

conclusion arrived at by the Court below all are incorrect.

3) The Court below should have dismissed the suit in its entirety.

4) The Court below ought to have held that the 6 th defendant is

entitled to her rightful share in the 2 nd suit schedule property as
it is a Hindu Undivided joint family property. The 5 th respondent
being the mother in the Joint Hindu Family is absolutely entitled
to her rightful share over the said property.

5) The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of State of Maharashtra

v. Narayan Rao Sham Rao Deshmukh & Ors., reported in
(1985) 2 SCC 321 held as follows:
“A joint family, however, may consist of female members. It may
consist of a male member, his wife, his mother and his
unmarried daughters.” It was further held that interest of a
female member of a joint Hindu family getting fixed, on her
inheriting interest of a deceased male member of the family.
She would not cease to be a member of family unless she chooses
to become separate by partition”

The court below failed to consider that the 2 nd suit schedule

property was purchased from the income generated from the
printing press by the plaintiff and all the defendants including
the 6th Defendant. Only from the revenue generated from the 1 st
suit schedule property by the 6th defendant Mere absence of her
 name in the registration o as prayed for in the plaint and the
consequential injunction.

5) The Court below ought to have held that the cause of auction
pleaded by the plaintiff is true and it is proved.

6) The Court below ought to have held that the plaintiff has proved
the case and therefore he is entitled to declaration and
consequential permanent injunction.

7) The Court below ought to have seen that the oral and
documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff clearly proved
that the plaintiff’s case is true and the defendants has not
chosen to examine themselves and therefore the Court below
should have taken adverse inference against the defendants
under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act.

8) The Court below ought to have seen that the evidence of the
plaintiff remains an unchallenged and the questions asked
during cross examination are not evidence in itself.

9) The Court below ought to have seen that the Bombay Public
Endowment Act, 1950 does not apply to the facts and
circumstances of the present case. The Act cannot have extra
territorial operation. The Trial Court has fell in to a Coma and
thought that Nagercoil is in State of Maharastra and in respect
of cause of action that arose in Nagercoil, Bombay Public
Endowment Act will apply.

10) The Court below ought to have held that since the cause of
action is unlawful and illegal, election conducted by the
 defendants, the Court in Nagercoil alone is having entitled to
deal with it.
..4..
11) The Court below ought to have held that the suit is perfectly
maintainable.

12) The Court below ought to have seen that the defendants have
not proved that the election agenda was correctly published,
that sufficient opportunity was granted to the prospective
contestants to file nomination papers, that election was held as
per the election schedule and that time was given before election
was conducted and after nomination was filed. In the absence of
satisfactory explanation from the defendants, it should
necessarily be held that the election is bad in law and election of
defendants is unsustainable.

13) The Court below ought to have seen that since it has come to the
conclusion that the Court has no power, should have left the
question of validity of election wide open, returned the plaint to
the plaintiff and directed the plaintiff to agitate the matter before
the proper authority.

14) In any view of the matters the judgment of the Court below is
wrong.

15) The Judgment is a classic case of non application of mine, if not,

misapplication of mind.

16) The Court below ought to have seen that consent does not confer
jurisdiction on a Court or authority lacking the same. It is
reasserted that the plaintiff has not given consent.
..5..
17) The Court below ought to have answered all the issues in favour
of the present appellant/plaintiff.

18) The Court below ought to have accepted the entire evidence both
oral and documentary on the side of the appellant and rejected
that of the defendant.

19) All other reasons assigned by the Court below in support of in

conclusion are factually unconvincing and legally insipid.

Therefore it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to

set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 24.11.2021 passed in
O.S.No.84 of 2015 on the file of the Learned II Additional District
Court, Tiruchirappalli, by allowing the First Appeal with cost and thus
render justice.
MEMO OF VALUATION

Value of O.S. : Rs. 2000.00

Value of court fee : Rs. 151.00
Value of A.S. : Rs. 2000.00
Court fee ; Rs. 151.00

Dated at Madurai on this 29th day of April 2022

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MADURAI BENCH
(Appellate Side Jurisdiction)

A.S.(MD)No. of 2023
New Jerusalam Church
Through its representative Pastor S.Sundarraj (died)
Pastor S.Yesudasan .. Appellant
Vs.
Philip Lazer
S/o. Lazer and 2 others .. Respondents

INDEX
Sl. Page
DATES PARTICULARS OF DOCUMENTS
No. No.
01. 29.04.2022 Court fee
02. 29.04.2022 Coding sheet
Petition for Condone delay in
03. 13.04.2023
Representation
04. 13.04.2023 Affidavit of the petitioner
05. 29.04.2022 Grounds of appeal
Judgment in O.S.No.84 of 2015 on the
06. 24.11.2021 file of the Learned II Additional District
Court, Tiruchirappalli
Decree in O.S.No.84 of 2015 on the file of
07. 24.11.2021 the Learned II Additional District Court,
Tiruchirappalli
TYPED SET OF PAPERS
08. .06.2015 Plaint in O.S.No.84 of 2015
09. .11.2015 Written statement in O.S.No.84 of 2015
Judgment in O.S.No.84 of 2015 on the
10. 24.11.2021 file of the Learned II Additional District
Court, Tiruchirappalli
Decree in O.S.No.84 of 2015 on the file of
11. 24.11.2021 the Learned II Additional District Court,
Tiruchirappalli
12. 29.04.2022 Vakalat
13. 29.04.2022 Batta
14. 29.04.2022 T & P Form
All the above documents are certified to be true copies of the originals.

Dated at Madurai on this 29th day of April 2022

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
 DISTRICT: MADURAI

HIGH COURT:: MADRAS

MADURAI BENCH
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P. (MD)No. of 2024

========================
WRIT PETITION
========================

M/s. R. Manoharan, 656/1992

M. Nila, 2965/2018
M. Pozhilan, 6451/2023
O.R. Gokul Abimanyu,6464/2023
N. Manikandan, 2231/2023

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

Mobile No: 98943 44783