The High Court dismissed the second appeal. Relying on concurrent findings of fact and evidence estoppel under Section 115, the Court held no substantial question of law existed to interfere with the lower courts' decree declaring the plaintiff's ownership and granting possession.
Second Appeal dismissed; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed; no order as to 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on:02.02.2017
Pronounced on:10.02.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
SECOND APPEAL No.1062 of 2009 and
M.P.No.1 of 2009
Ponnusamy
.. Appellant
/versus/
1.S.Venugopal 2.Chinnaraj
.. Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Krishnagiri, dated 15.12.2008 in A.S.No.17 of 2007 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif of Krishnagiri, dated 27.10.2006 in O.S.No.226 of 2001.
For Appellant :Mr.K.Karthick Asath for
Mr.V.Nicholas
For Respondent :Mr.P.Mani for R1 No appearance for R2 -----------
2
J U D G M E N T
The appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of the Courts
below granting decree of declaration, delivery of possession, piece of land
encroached by the adjacent land owners, the appellants herein.
3
4
in possession of it through his ancestor.
dismissal of that suit will not affect the case of the defendants in the present suit. Without any authorisation or leave to file this suit on behalf of his brothers, the plaintiff has laid the suit for the said reason. The suit itself is bad for non founder of necessary party, since the Courts below have failed to appreciate this illegality. Hence, the appeal ought to be allowed.
the respondents to hear whether any question of law substantial to interfere is available in this appeal?. Accordingly, on receipt of the notice, the first respondent through his counsel appeared and submitted that, the suit was laid by the plaintiff for himself and for his brothers Sankaran, Nagappan and Sivalingam. The relief of declaration was sought in favour of all the four owners of the property. Their names are found in patta marked as Ex.A1. Since there was encroached by the defendants, one of
the owners has laid the suit against the strangers. There is no legal impediment or bar for one of the co-owners to file suit against strangers
to protect the interest of other co-owners. The Courts below have gone
5
into this point and had negatived the said plea. Therefore, there is no substantial question of law to formulate in this appeal.
6
estopped under Section 115 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to plea contrary to their own admission.
the Court to interfere under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed . No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
10.02.2017
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ari To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri. The District Munsif, Krishnagiri.
7
Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.
ari
Judgment made in S.A.No.1062 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009
10.02.2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Courts below erred in concluding that there is no substantial question of law regarding non-joinder of necessary co-owner parties.
Whether the defendants were estopped from denying the plaintiff's ownership due to admissions made in previous proceedings.
Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts should be interfered with in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ponnusamy
S. Venugopal
Chinnaraj
G. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
