In a second appeal regarding a suit for permanent injunction, the High Court held the appellant failed to prove peaceful possession despite holding a title deed, as evidence suggested she attempted to dispossess the respondent. The appeal was dismissed.
Second appeal dismissed; decree dated 21.02.2006 upheld; decree dated 08.09.2005 set aside.
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 : 08.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTIC E R.HEMALATHA
S.A.NO.1357 OF 2007
AND
M.P. NO.1 OF 2007
Suppathal
...Appellant/ Respondent/Plaintiff
Vs.
K. Mani ...Respondent/ Appellant/Defendant
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2006 passed in A.S. No.213 of 2005, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge -cum- Appellate Authority Coimbatore, reversing the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2005 passed in O.S. No.1837 of 2000, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr. M. Baskar For Respondent : Mr. A.E. Ravichandran for M/s. Usha
JUDGMENT
The appellant Suppathaal is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1837 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore. She filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
A.S. No.213 of 2005 before the II Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore. The learned II Additional Subordinate judge vide
his decree and judgment dated 21.02.2006 reversed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
"Whether the court below is right in dismissing the suit by not accepting the settled law that possession follows title more particularly when the appellant proved both the possession and the title to the suit property?"
entire plaint should be read in whole. He relied on the decision in Palaniammlal Vs. Pechimuthu & Others reported in (1991) 31 MLJ 1. In that case the plaintiff upon finding the defendants trespassing into the suit property lodged a complaint against them before the police. Though the defendants had been warned by the police, they started putting up construction and immediately the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and for a mandatory injunction against the defendants. It was not the case where the defendants encroached upon the property and squatted on the same for some time and thereafter, began to construct thereon. The fact that the defendants were putting up the construction in the suit property was also specifically mentioned in the plaint. In such circumstances, it was held that the plaintiff need not seek declaration of title to the suit property and for recovery of possession. The facts of the present case are entirely different. In the case on hand, the plaintiff had averred in the plaint that the defendant attempted to trespass into the suit property on various dates including 04.08.2000 and 31.08.2000. As already observed it was only the plaintiff who attempted to dispossess the defendant from the suit property. The plaintiff except filing Ex.A1 has not adduced any evidence to show her possession over the suit property. In fact the trial court had found the defendant in possession of the suit property and directed the defendant to remove the construction put up by him within one month from the date of decree.
ii.the decree and judgment dated 21.02.2006 passed in A.S. No.213 of 2005, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge cum Appellate Authority, Coimbatore, are upheld.
iii.the decree and judgment dated 08.09.2005 passed in O.S. No.1837 of 2000, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, are set aside.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
bga
To
1. The the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore .
2. The II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr. A.E. Ravichandran, Advocate, S.R.No.53268
S.A.No .1357 of 2007
SJ(CO) PM/15/11/2021
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court below is right in dismissing the suit by not accepting the settled law that possession follows title given that the appellant proved possession and title.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Palaniammal Vs. Pechimuthu & OthersDistinguished¶37
(1991) 31 MLJ 1
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Suppathal
K. Mani
E. R. Hemalatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
