The High Court dismissed a second appeal filed by an appellant claiming possession of property allotted by a housing board. The court held that without a grant deed of indenture from the Board, the appellant could not be considered the owner entitled to recover possession, dismissing the appeal.
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.
S.A(MD)No.483 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.08.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
S.A(MD)No.483 of 2013
Marriappan ... Appellant/ Appellant/ Plaintiff No.2
Vs.
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree, dated 19.10.2012, in A.S.No.27 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 29.06.2010, in O.S.No.8 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif, Kulithalai.
For Appellant : M/s.S.Jayavel For R-1 to R-5 : Mr.V.Illanchezian For R-6 : No appearance
S.A(MD)No.483 of 2013
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is the appellant herein.
consequential reliefs as against one Marudaiveeran. According to the plaintiff, he has already been allotted the schedule mentioned property by the first plaintiff and hence, he is in possession of the property. The said property was encroached upon by the defendant. Hence, he prayed for delivery of possession.
S.A(MD)No.483 of 2013
Subordinate Court, Kulithalai. The learned Subordinate Judge also concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. As against the same, the present Second Appeal has been filed.
far no orders have been passed by the Boodhan Board, granting deed of indenture in favour of the plaintiff / appellant herein. In such view of the matter, the plaintiff can never be considered to be the owner of the property to be entitled to recovery possession from the defendant. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree of the Courts below. The Second Appeal stands dismissed. However, in case, if the Boodhan Board passes an order, granting deed of indenture in favour of the appellant, thereafter, the appellant will be at liberty to pursue his
S.A(MD)No.483 of 2013
legal remedy. In view of the orders passed in the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.13596 of 2013, the Second Appeal stands dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
22.08.2022
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No btr To
S.A(MD)No.483 of 2013
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
btr
Order made in S.A(MD)No.483 of 2013
Dated: 22.08.2022
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant could establish title to the property to be entitled to recover possession from the defendant despite the lack of a deed of indenture from the Boodhan Board.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Marriappan
Pandian
The President, Inbaseva Sangam, Sevapur
R. Vijayakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
