G.Kandasamy v. Rathinam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.12.2016

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH
Second Appeal No.423 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.7389 of 2016
1.G.Kandasamy
2.U.Selvam
3.Jeevanandam @ Amboke ..Appellants/Defendants
Vs
1.Rathinam
2.Balasundaram
3.Chidambaranathan ..Respondents/Plaintiffs
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the
judgment and decree dated 01.02.2016 made in A.S.No.8 of 2014 on
the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai,
confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.92 of 2010
dated 28.11.2013 by the Additional District Munsif,
Mayiladuthurai.
For Appellants .. Mr.A.Ilangovan
For Respondents .. Ms.P.Srividhya
for Mr.A.Muthukumar
for R1 to R3
JUDGMENT

This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2016 made in A.S.No.8 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai.

2.The respondents, being the plaintiffs, filed a suit for permanent injunction on the basis of title and placing reliance upon Ex.A1 - patta and Ex.A2 - kist receipt.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The defence of the appellants/defendants before the Trial Court was two fold. Firstly, it was contended that they are the cultivating tenants of the respondents/plaintiffs. Secondly, they being the erstwhile Thalayaris, they have been in possession and enjoyment and reliance has also been made on Ex.B2 – encumbrance certificate. The Courts below decreed the suit as prayed for, by placing reliance upon Exs.A1 and A2 and disbelieving Ex.B2. Ex.B2 is a document pertaining to cooperative society. This document makes reference to one Muthukumar and Rani with respect to the suit property, though according to the appellants/defendants, it is for lesser extent. Ex.B2 also says that the suit property has been mortgaged by the appellants/defendants as cultivating tenants and thereafter, discharged. The Courts below therefore held that the appellants/defendants have not proved Ex.B2 and in the light of the contrary stand taken by them, especially by the first defendant, not only with respect to the nature of title sought to be established by them but also the property in question, the suit was decreed.