In this second appeals, the High Court of Madras dismissed the appeal filed by a defendant against a decree granting possession of suit property to plaintiffs based on a sale deed. The court held that the plaintiffs proved ownership via valid documents, finding no reason to interfere.
Second Appeal dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P. closed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.04.2017
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
Second Appeal No.1547 of 2011
M.Jayaraj
... Appellant/Defendant
Vs
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2011 passed in A.S.No.31 of 2010 by the I Additional District Judge, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal Sub Judge, Salem, dated 01.02.2008 passed in O.S.No.45 of 2006.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Nalliyappan
For Respondents : Mr.Kalyanaraman
The unsuccessful defendant before both the Courts below is the appellant herein and the successful plaintiffs are the respondents herein. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2011 passed in A.S.No.31 of 2010 by the I Additional District Judge, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal Sub Judge, Salem, dated 01.02.2008 passed in O.S.No.45 of 2006, the defendant has come up with the present Second Appeal.
from the suit property, the plaintiffs withdrew the said suit in O.S.No.496 of 2003 on 12.12.2005. Hence, the plaintiffs filed another suit in O.S.No.45 of 2006 against the defendant seeking possession of the suit property.
and also handed over the original title deeds of the suit property, marked as Ex.A3. He further submitted that since the appellant/defendant forcibly entered into the suit property, the respondents/plaintiffs withdrew the suit in O.S.No.496 of 2003. According to him, the exparte judgment and decree in O.S.No.868 of 2005 filed by the appellant/defendant is not binding on the respondents/plaintiffs and that the principle of resjudicata is not applicable to the case on hand. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Second Appeal.
“Whether the First Appellate Court is right in holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of delivery of possession based on Ex.A1 – Sale Deed, dated 08.10.2001 executed by the defendant?”
In fine, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CCC)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
aeb
To:
1. The I Additional District Judge, Salem.
2. The Principal Sub Judge, Salem.
+1cc to Mr.R.Nalliyapaan, Advocate in sr.no.20435
+1cc to Mr.S.Kalyanaraman, Advocate in sr.no.20512
S.A.No.1547 of 2011
KGK(CO)
NR 22/06/2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the First Appellate Court was right in holding that plaintiffs are entitled to delivery of possession based on the Sale Deed dated 08.10.2001?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Jayaraj
M.Thangaraj
T.Muthusamy
T.Selladurai
T.Dhanaraj
S.Vaidyanathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
