In a second appeal regarding a suit for permanent injunction, the Madras High Court held a suit dismissed. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove possession over the entire claimed land and confirmed the lower appellate court's modification restricting the injunction to the proved portion.
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: 31.10.2019 Delivered on: 23.01.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
S.A.No.431 of 1999
1.Ramachandran(Deceased) 2.Mariammal 3.Rukmani 4.R.Venkatesan 5.R.Krishnan 6.R.Arumugam ... Appellants/Plaintiff (Appellants 2 to 6 brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole appellant vide order of Court dated 08.02.2018 made in CMP.No.1950 to 1952/2017 in S.A.No.431 of 1999)
Vs. 1.Elumalai(Deceased) 2.Natesan 3.Ezhural 4.E.Kamaraj 5.E.Kumar ...Respondents /Defendants
(RR3 to 5 brought on record as LRs of the deceased R1 vide order of Court dated 08.02.2018 made
in CMP.No.1953 to 1955/2017 in S.A.No.431 of 1999)
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., to set aside the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court made in A.S.No.10 of 1995 dated 06.08.1998 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu, partly reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.350 of 1992 dated 27.01.1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam and allow the appeal with cost throughout.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Hariharan
For Respondents: Mr.V.V.Sai Ram for R2 to R5
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Sub-Judge, Chengalpattu in A.S.No.10 of 1995 dated 06.08.1998 partly reversing the judgment and decree passed by the District Munsif, Maduranthakam in O.S.No.350 of 1992 dated 27.01.1995.
The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for the past 40 years. He has been in possession of the said property openly and to the knowledge of the entire Villagers and hence, he has also acquired possessory title over the suit property. The Panchayat has assessed house tax for the hut put up by the plaintiff. About 20 years ago, the Tahsildar has granted a patta assigning in favour of the plaintiff for a portion of the suit property. The plaintiff requested to grant patta to the entire extent but he was told that patta could be granted under the Scheme only for an extent of 5 cents. However, the plaintiff is enjoying the entire suit property as one block. The plaintiff had planted several trees on the western ridge of the suit property to demarcate his extent of possession. Apart from his house, the plaintiff has stored waste in the suit property and has also stacked hayrick in the suit property. The defendants are having no right or title over the suit property and they are not in possession of the same. But they are trying to trespass into the suit property and hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction.
It is false to say that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for the past 40 years and he acquired possessory title over the entire suit property. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the 5 cents only in S.No.140 of Lathur Village. The plaintiff has purposely given false description of the suit property. The boundaries mentioned in the suit property are incorrect. The defendants have filed rough sketch to show the present position of the suit property. The plaintiff's property is situated on the northern side. In the southern side there is a temple by name Gengaiamman Temple with a compound wall. The plaintiff is not in possession of the said portion. The plaintiff is having separate entrance from the Colony Street, which runs on the eastern side. There is a clear demarcation between the plaintiff's 5 cents and the temple land. The plaintiff is trying to grab the temple's land and hence, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit.
“1. In a suit for bare injunction can the Courts below go into the question of title of the plaintiff when the plaintiff solely bases his claim for injunction to protect his possession while the government is the owner and when the patta proceedings are pending and whether the plaintiff's title, to possess the land is relevant for getting the relief of injunction against third party?
The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the first Appellate Court erred in modifying the well considered judgment and decree of the trial Court. He further submitted that the first Appellate Court failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff in a proper perspective. He further submitted that the first Appellate Court failed to see that the defendants have not claimed any right for themselves and on the contrary, they have claimed that the portion of the suit property is in possession of the temple, but they have not produced any documentary evidence to show that the temple is in possession of a portion of the suit property.
Court had erroneously modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court and restricted the relief only for a portion of the suit property and therefore, he prayed to allow the Second Appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court and restore the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
The C.K.Babdoss Vs. R.S.Asokan and others, (2015) 1 MLJ 477.
C2) would clearly show that there is a clear demarcation between the plaintiff's house and Gangaiamman Temple which is situated on the south of the plaintiff's house. The said report and plan also would show that there is a clear compound wall in between the plaintiff's house and the aforesaid temple and shown as 'CD' in Ex.C2 plan. In fact, the said plan shows that the plaintiff is having accesse to his house from the Colony Street, which runs on the eastern side.
“9. According to me, Ex.C-1 report and Ex.C-2 plan wil have a great bearing in deciding the issue in this case. Unfortunately, the lower appellate Court has not taken into consideration that material evidence, except for a mere statement that a Commissioner's report has been filed. There is no discussion about Exs.C-1 and C-2 report and plan. Why I am referring to Ex.C-1 report is because, nobody has got any objection to the lie of the property as identified by the Commissioner. It is an impartial report even according to both parties, and the same has been prepared by an independent person. All the other piece of evidence are interested. I am not saying for a moment that the Commissioner's report has to be relied on for the purpose of proving possession. I am relying on the report and plan only for the purpose of proving the physical features of the property, from which certain inference can be drawn.”
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
dna
To 1.The Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu. 2.The District Munsif, Maduranthakam. 3.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.V.Sairam, Advocate, S.R.No. 4859 +1cc to Mr.K.Hariharan, Advocate, S.R.No. 5417
S.A.No.431 of 1999
NMI(CO) GN(22/09/2020)
2 issues framed by the court
In a bare injunction suit based on possessory rights, can the court examine the question of title when patta proceedings are pending?
Whether the plaintiff bore the burden of proving possession over the entire extent of the suit property claimed despite having patta only for a smaller portion?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The C.K.Babdoss Vs. R.S.Asokan and othersDistinguished¶48
The C.K.Babdoss Vs. R.S.Asokan and others, (2015) 1 MLJ 477
Chelladurai and 5 others Vs. Perumal NadarApplied¶45
Chelladurai and 5 others Vs. Perumal Nadar, 1998-3LW-119
Ramachandran(Deceased)s.LRs
Elumalai(Deceased)s.LRs
P.RAJAMANICKAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
