This is a second appeal regarding a suit for permanent injunction concerning suit property. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant had lost title due to a cancellation order and failed to prove continuous possession thereafter, thus being denied the injunction.
Second Appeal dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 03.12.2018
PRONOUNCED ON: 19.12.2018
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
S.A.No.796 of 2007
&
MP.No.1 of 2007
Mrs.Unnamalai ... Appellant/Respondent/Plaintiff Vs. 1.Jayakodi 2.Kumar 3.Settu ... Respondents/Appellant/Defendant Prayer:- This Memorandum of Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and decree dated 04.12.2006 passed in A.S.No.146 of 2004 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kallakurichi reversing the judgment and decree dated 17.06.2004 passed in O.S.No.702 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Kallakurichi.
For Appellant : Mr.A.G.Rajan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Saravana Kumar
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal against impugning judgment and decree dated 04.12.2006 passed in A.S.No.146 of 2004 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kallakurichi reversing the judgment and decree dated 17.06.2004 passed in O.S.No.702 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Kallakurichi.
Kallakurichi, for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi by the judgment and decree dated 17.06.2004 has allowed the said suit with cost. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants in the suit have filed an appeal in A.S.No.146 of 2004 before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi by the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2006 allowed the said appeal and modified the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit.
The suit schedule property initially belongs to the Government. In view of the fact that the plaintiff was in the continuous possession of 10 years, the Tahsildar, Kallakurichi on 08.01.1998 issued an assignment patta in favour of the plaintiff to the suit schedule property. As per the patta, the plaintiff paid kist to the Government. In the meantime, due to the previous enmity, from 01.08.2000 onwards the defendants attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The defendants joined together and unlawfully tried to trespass into the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the above suit for the relief of permanent injunction.
converted as ''Tarisu'' in the year 1997, and subsequently, a patta was issued in favour of the members belongs to the Pangaram land Development Co-operative Society. The plaintiff obtained patta with the help of one Selvi, who is her relative working as a Revenue Inspector. The patta issued in favour of the plaintiff is not acted upon. Further, there is no cause of action for the suit filed by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendants are prayed to dismiss the above said suit. Based on the above said pleadings, the learned Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi has framed necessary issues and tried the suit.
(i)Whether the lower Appellate Court has committed an error of law in reversing the well considered judgment of the Trial Court placing reliance on Ex.B4 without considering the finding of the trial Court that the appellant was in possession of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit?
other provisions. The expression ''obligation'' has been defined in Sec.2(a) of the Specific Relief Act. It includes every duty enforceable by law. But in this case, since the appellant losses the title, through the order passed by the Commissioner of Land Administration, the relief sought for by her is not necessary. Apart from that for obtaining the relief of permanent injunction, the petitioner must show the continuous possession of the suit property. But in this case, the plaintiff has not produced relevant documents to show her possession. Further, the title confirmed by the Tahsildar was also subsequently cancelled. Therefore, the judgment rendered by the first appellate Court is well considered one since the title and possession is not in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly, she is not entitled to the relief as granted by the trial Court.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower appellate court committed an error of law in reversing the trial court judgment without considering the finding of continuous possession by the appellant?
Whether the appellant is entitled to permanent injunction relief after her patta was cancelled and she could not prove continuous possession post-cancellation?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mrs. Unnamalai
Jayakodi
Kumar
Settu
R.Pongiappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
