In this second appeal, the appellant, claiming title via adverse possession, sought a permanent injunction against the respondent temple authority. The court held the appellant was a trespasser with no valid title and dismissed the appeal.
Second appeal dismissed with 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 11.04.2018
PRONOUNCED ON : 18.04.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S. A.No.563 of 1999
K.M.Babu ...Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs. The Executive Officer, Anjaneyar Arunachaleswarar Devasthanam, Korattur. ... Respondent/Defendant
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed by Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee on 30.11.1998 in A.S.No.47/1997 confirming the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.1304/1988 on 25.06.1997 by the District Munsif, Poonamallee.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Balasubramanian For Respondent : Mr. P.V.Arul Pazham Nee JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1998 passed in A.S.No.47/1997, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.06.1997 passed in O.S.No.1304/1988 on the file of the District Munsif, Poonamallee.
natham property and enjoyed by the plaintiff's adoptive father as his own, till his death along with the plaintiff and after his demise, the plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same by paying house tax etc., and the plaintiff has put up a terraced building in the suit property in or about 1979, obtained electricity service connection and accordingly, enjoying the suit property continuously by paying necessary electric charges and on account of the long and continuous possession and enjoyment beyond the statutory period, he has also perfected his title to the suit property by way of adverse possession and the defendant is a stranger to the suit property and at the instigation of others, objected the plaintiff from plucking the fruits in the suit property and also threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property without any legal authority and accordingly, he has been constrained to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.
“(i) Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below are legally sustainable inasmuch as they have failed to note that the appellant being in possession of the suit properties is entitled to a decree for injunction?
(ii) Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below are legally sustainable inasmuch as they have not followed the judgment reported in 1997 (1) CTC 407?”
Courts below had rightly dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sli To 1. The Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee. 2. The District Munsif Court, Poonamallee. 3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.S.Balasubramanian, Advocate, S.R.No.28630 +1cc to Mr.P.V.Arul Pazham Nee, Advocate, S.R.No.28595
S. A.No.563 of 1999
EV(CO) CS/12/06/18
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction when the appellant claimed title via adverse possession as an adopted son.
Whether the courts below erred by not following the judgment reported in 1997 (1) CTC 407 regarding injunctions over possession.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.M.Babu
The Executive Officer, Anjaneyar Arunachaleswarar Devasthanam, Korattur
T.RAVINDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
