In a second appeal seeking injunction, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal. The Court held that an unregistered, insufficiently stamped sale deed is inadmissible even for collateral purposes to prove possession, leading to the dismissal of the suit for bare injunction.
Second appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
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.593 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
S.A(MD)No.38 of 2016 and C.M.P(MD) No.966 of 2016
Veerappan ...Appellant/Appellant/ Plaintiff
-Vs1.Mariammal 2.Sakkaraisamy ... Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants
PRAYER : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2015 made in A.S.No.15 of 2014 on the file of Sub Court, Virudhunagar, reversing the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2014 made in O.S.No.195 of 2013 on the file of District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar and allow this second appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
1/8
JUDGMENT
S.A(MD)No.593 of 2013
The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The appellant filed a suit for bare injunction and the same was dismissed by the trial Court and confirmed in appeal.
2.According to the appellant, the suit property originally belonged to one Karuppasamy Chettiar and his son Arjunan sold the property to one Singaram and the appellant purchased the suit property from said Singaram under unregistered sale deed dated 25.10.1994. After purchase, the appellant put up a thatched house in the suit property in the year 1996 and he also put up a concrete house in the year 1999. It was further stated in the plaint that he has been in possession and enjoyment by paying house tax and electricity bill etc., It was further alleged that the respondents, who purchased the property situated opposite to the suit property tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the appellant by putting up fence in front of the suit property and thereby denied the right of access available to the appellant to the road. In view of the attempted interference by the respondents over the possession of the appellant, he was constrained to file a suit for injunction.
2/8
S.A(MD)No.593 of 2013
3/8
S.A(MD)No.593 of 2013
finding of the trial Court and dismissed the first appeal. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court.
1.Whether the Courts below have committed an error by rejecting the evidentiary value of document of proof and possession of the suit property for the reason that the documents of title produced is inadmissible under the Evidence Act?
2.Whether the Courts below have failed to find in a suit for bare injunction and prima facie case and balance of convenience and possession as on date of institution of the suit are relevant?
3.Whether the Courts below have committed an error by the refusal to appreciate Exs.A2 to A4 which are very much relevant for the purpose of proof of possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on date of institution of the suit property?
4/8
S.A(MD)No.593 of 2013
5/8
S.A(MD)No.593 of 2013
insufficiently stamped sale deed produced by the appellant cannot be looked into even for collateral purpose to assess the nature and character of alleged possession of the appellant. When Ex.A.1 title document relied on by the appellant is per se inadmissible for any purpose, it may not be possible for the Court to come to a conclusion regarding legal possession of appellant only based on Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.4. Therefore, the Courts below are justified in coming to a conclusion that the appellant failed to prove his lawful possession over the suit property by convincing the evidence. Therefore, the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below need not be interfered with as it cannot be termed as perverse.
6/8
S.A(MD)No.593 of 2013
there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.01.2023 NCC : Yes/ No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No cp
To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar.
3.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8
S.A(MD)No.593 of 2013
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
CP
S.A(MD)No.38 of 2016 and C.M.P(MD) No.966 of 2016
25.01.2023
8/8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Courts erred in rejecting evidentiary value of the sale deed and possession documents due to inadmissibility under the Evidence Act?
Whether relevance of prima facie case and balance of convenience was overlooked in a suit for bare injunction?
Whether refusal to appreciate documents proving possession and enjoyment constituted an error?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Veerappan
Mariammal
Sakkaraisamy
S.Sounthar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
