Second appeal by unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for bare injunction over agricultural land. Courts below found plaintiffs failed to prove possession or title while defendants traced title through a court auction sale and patta. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding no substantial question of law arose.
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.No.211 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
S.A.No.211 of 2018 and C.M.P.Nos.5406 of 2018 and 6681 of 2019
G.Veeraragavan
...Appellant
Vs.
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 04.08.2014 passed in A.S.No.63 of 2011, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore, upholding the decree and judgment dated 24.09.2010 passed in O.S.No.105 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.1, Walajah, Vellore District.
For Appellant : Mr.T.P.Prabakaran For R1 to R4 : Mr.P.Mani For R5 : No appearance
Page 1 of 12
S.A.No.211 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful first plaintiff before both the Courts below
has filed the present second appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present second appeal would also be indicated.
3. The case of the plaintiffs in a nutshell is as follows :
The suit properties are described under two heads. The 'A' schedule property is a land in S.No.145/1 of Padi Village, Arcot Taluk, Vellore District, measuring 0.15 acres out of 0.30 acres within the boundaries stated therein. The 'B' schedule property is described as 1/2 share in the Well situate in 'A' schedule property. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit properties originally belonged to one Chengalvaraya Mudaliar. He had two sons by names
Page 2 of 12
S.A.No.211 of 2018
Sambasiva Mudaliar and Govindasamy Mudaliar and the two sons entered into a partition deed dated 29.04.1953 (Ex.A1). In the partition deed, Govindasamy Mudaliar was allotted to 15 cents of land and Sambasiva Mudaliar was allotted the remaining 15 cents. Govindasamy Mudaliar sold his share in favour of the first plaintiff through a registered Sale deed, dated 13.02.1991 (Ex.A2). Similarly, Sambasiva Mudaliar sold his share through a registered sale deed, dated 31.10.1977 in favour of the father of the second plaintiff. Thus the plaintiffs are in continuous possession over the suit properties. According to them, the defendants are attempting to trespass into the suit properties and one such attempt was made during the first week of May 2006. Hence, the suit.
4. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the following
grounds:
Page 3 of 12
S.A.No.211 of 2018
iii. Ever since the date of purchase, Gangu Chettiar was in possession
of the suit properties and thereafter his grandson Parasurama Chettiar who succeeded to the estate sold the same to the vendors of the defendants.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:
ii. To what relief is the plaintiffs entitled?"
Page 4 of 12
S.A.No.211 of 2018
6. In the trial Court, the plaintiffs examined themselves and
marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. The first defendant examined himself and
marked Ex.B1 and Ex.B5.
7. After full contest, the learned District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Walajah, Vellore District, vide his decree and judgment dated 24.09.2010, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs on the following grounds:- :
Page 5 of 12
v.
S.A.No.211 of 2018
vi. Patta was also issued in favour of the defendants by the Revenue Authorities as is seen from Ex.B3.
8. Aggrieved over the decree and judgment passed by the trial
court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in A.S.No.63 of 2011, before the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore. The learned Subordinate Judge, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides, upheld the findings recorded by the trial court, vide her decree and judgment dated 04.08.2014, as against which the present second appeal is filed.
9. Heard Mr.T.P.Prabakaran, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr.P.Mani, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4.
10. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for a bare injunction based
Page 6 of 12
S.A.No.211 of 2018
on the sale deeds, dated 13.02.1991 (Ex.A2) and 31.10.1977 (Ex.A3) allegedly executed by the sons of Chengalvaraya Mudaliar. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties were originally owned by Chengalvaraya Mudaliar and that there was a partition in their family on 29.04.1953. The plaintiffs have not stated as to how Chengalvaraya Mudaliar became entitled to the suit properties. Except the partition deed dated 29.04.1953 (Ex.A1), no other documents were filed by the plaintiffs to show that their predecessors in title had a right and title over the suit properties.
11. It is true that in a suit for bare injunction, the title of the suit properties need not be gone into. However, in the instant case, the defendants have created a cloud in the title of the plaintiffs over the suit properties by adducing acceptable evidence in their favour. When the title itself is questioned, the plaintiffs ought to have amended the plaint and sought for a declaration of their title to the suit properties. Moreover, the plaintiffs have not adduced any acceptable evidence to show that they are in possession of the suit properties ever since the date of purchase, especially when the suit properties are agricultural lands.
Page 7 of 12
S.A.No.211 of 2018
The Adangal extracts have not been adduced by them. Further, the first plaintiff during the course of cross examination admitted that he obtained patta only for two ares in survey number 145/1A and not for the entire suit property.
12. A perusal of the evidence adduced on the side of the defendants clearly shows that the property in survey number 145/1 measuring 4.25 acres was sold through court auction sale in I.P.244/28 on the file of the Madras High Court (Ex.B1) in favour of Gangu Chettiar and his grand son Parasurama Chettiar sold the properties to the vendors of the first defendant. The first defendant purchased the suit properties through a registered sale deed dated 22.05.2006 (Ex.B2). The patta for the suit property also stands in the name of the defendants as is seen from Ex.B3. In the circumstances, the observations made by both the Courts below that the plaintiffs have not adduced any evidence to substantiate their contentions, cannot be found fault with. In fact, there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal.
Page 8 of 12
S.A.No.211 of 2018
13. It is pertinent to point out that Section 100 CPC is a jurisdiction confined to substantial questions of law only. In the decision in Madamanchi Ramappa and Another Vs Muthalur Bojjappa
reported in (1964) 2 SCR 673 , the Apex Court observed as follows:
Page 9 of 12
S.A.No.211 of 2018
If in reaching its decisions in second appeals, the High Court contravenes the express provisions of section 100, it would inevitably introduce in such decisions an element of disconcerting unpredictability which is usually associated with gambling and that is a reproach which judicial process must constantly and scrupulously endeavour to avoid."
14. In the result,
of 2011, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore, and the decree and judgment dated 24.09.2010 passed in O.S. No.105 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
No.1, Walajah, Vellore District, are upheld.
07.11.2024
Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order vum
Page 10 of 12
S.A.No.211 of 2018
To
2. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.1, Walajah, Vellore District
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
Page 11 of 12
S.A.No.211 of 2018
R. HEMALATHA, J.
vum
S.A.No.211 of 2018 and C.M.P.Nos.5406 of 2018 and 6681 of 2019
07.11.2024
Page 12 of 12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a permanent injunction restraining interference with their possession of the suit properties.
Whether the second appeal raised any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madamanchi Ramappa and Another Vs Muthalur BojjappaRelied on¶13
(1964) 2 SCR 673 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G.Veeraragavan
Subramani
Saroja
Raman
Perumal
V.Madhavan
R.Hemalatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
