Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed a second appeal filed by the appellant challenging the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court. The court held there is no substantial question of law involved.
No order as to costs; appeal dismissed.
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.443 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
S.A.(MD).No.443 of 2022
M.Nachimuthu
... Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Maruthairaj
2.The Tahsildar, Dindigul Taluk Office, Dindigul Town, Dindigul District.
3.The Dindigul District Collector, Velu nachiyar Valagam, Thadikombu Road, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul District. ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
Prayer : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.16 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul dated 19.02.2018 by confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.102 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Dindigul dated 08.11.2012 and thus allow the appeal with costs.
1/7
S.A.(MD).No.443 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.V.Illanchezian For R-1 : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan For R-2 : Mrs.S.Jeyapriya, Government Advocate.
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of
the Courts below. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.102 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul. The said suit was filed for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the appellant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
2/7
S.A.(MD).No.443 of 2022
written statement that the appellant/plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule property. The respondents 2 and 3, who are the defendants 2 and 3 in the suit, have also categorically contended that the suit schedule property is a Government Punja land.
name of the appellant/plaintiff, which has been marked as Ex.A2, the appellant/plaintiff has not filed any revenue records to show that he is in possession of the suit schedule property as the absolute owner. The appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit only for permanent injunction and has not sought for any declaration of title in his favour. When there is a cloud over the title, the plaintiff, if he is really the true owner, ought to have filed a declaratory suit to declare himself as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
3/7
S.A.(MD).No.443 of 2022
to declare himself as the absolute owner. Neither is the plaintiff the owner of the property nor the first defendant in whose favour only a B memo has been issued and one of the B memos has been marked as Ex.B6 before the Trial Court.
4/7
S.A.(MD).No.443 of 2022
as the grounds raised by the appellant are only factual issues which have been rightly considered by the Courts below based on oral and documentary evidence.
09.03.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Lm
5/7
S.A.(MD).No.443 of 2022
To
6/7
S.A.(MD).No.443 of 2022
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Lm
S.A.(MD).No.443 of 2022
09.03.2023
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC challenging the order confirming the trial court's judgment and decree deserves to be allowed.
Whether the appellant has established title and possession over the suit schedule property.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nachimuthu
Maruthairaj
The Tahsildar, Dindigul Taluk Office, Dindigul Town, Dindigul District
The Dindigul District Collector
Abdul Quddhose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
