Court held a suit for bare injunction was not maintainable as plaintiffs failed to prove possession or establish title over vacant sites. The appeal against the lower courts' dismissal was dismissed.
Second Appeal dismissed; lower court's judgment and decree confirmed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:04/04/2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
Second Appeal (MD) No.839 of 2013
Vs
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment dated 26/11/2012 made in A.S.No.6 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Sub-Court, Madurai by confirming the decree and judgment dated 4/11/2011 made in O.S.No.118 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai.
For Appellants ... Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar for Mr.A.R.Sethupathy For Respondents ... Mr.R.Lakshmanan for R.1.
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiffs are the appellants, challenging the concurrent finding of the Courts below in a suit filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents and servants from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties.
2
Subordinate Judge, Madurai in I.A.No.957 of 1992 in O.S.No.13 of 32 by a registered sale deed document No.1982/1994 dated 24/1/1994. The first defendant also got the patta transferred in his name. The original patta number was 274 and later, it was sub-divided into 1170. The defendants have been in possession of the property ever since the purchase of the same through Court auction and has been paying tax to the Corporation of Madurai.
“1. In a suit for bare injunction, whether the Courts below are right in dismissing the suit for not praying for declaration of Title?
3
executed two independent Power of Attorney deeds in favour of one Murugesan which were marked as Exs.A.6 and A.7. The plaintiffs claim to have purchased the properties from the said Murugesan the power agent under documents Exs.A.8 and A.9.
“Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession
4
from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.”
Mvs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar[AS]
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
+1cc to Mr.AR.Sethupathy, Advocate SR.No.20518.
+2 cc to Mr.R.Laskhmanan, Advocate SR.No.20659.
Judgment in S.A.(MD) No.839 of 2013
Dated:04/04/2014
4P/7C RPB 21.04.2014
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a suit for bare injunction is maintainable in the absence of a prayer for declaration of title when the plaintiffs' title is under dispute.
Whether a plaintiff can establish possession for the purpose of an injunction suit without independent evidence of possession prior to purchase.
Whether the courts below were correct in dismissing the suit for injunction against the plaintiffs who failed to prove possession or title over vacant sites.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
ANATHULA SUDHAKAR Vs. P. BUCHI REDDY (DEAD) BY Lrs & OTHERSApplied¶34
2008 (6) CTC 237
V. CHANDRASEKARAN
TMT.C.SUDHA
TMT.T.V.P.BHAMARAJA
V. KARTHIKEYAN
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
Parties & counsel
