Defendants who lost an earlier suit filed two new suits for declaration of title and recovery of possession; trial and first appellate courts decreed both suits. Second appeals dismissed at admission stage confirming concurrent findings that the suits were not barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
S.A.Nos.238 & 239 of 2024 and CMP No.7610 of 2024
Judgment reserved on Judgment pronounced on 04.04.2024 17.04.2024 1.Arokiasamy ... Appellant in both Appeals 2.Sammansmary ... 2nd Appellant in S.A.No.239 of 2024 Vs. 1.Gabriel 2.Rajrathnam 3.Periyanayagam ... Respondents in both Appeals
COMMON PRAYER: Second Appeals filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree in A.S.NoS.13 & 14 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhachallam at Cuddalore dated 18.07.2023 in confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.Nos.104 of 2013 & 27 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Neyveli dated 18.11.2022.
Both Appeals For Appellants : Mr.G.Surya Narayanan For Respondents : Mrs.B.N.Sivagama Sundari for R1 & R2
2
J U D G M E N T
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their ranking before the Trial Court.
respondents herein initially filed suit against Periyanayagam, Gabriel and Rajarathinam in O.S.No.54 of 2000 before the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli for declaration of title and permanent injunction. After trial, the said suit was dismissed. On appeal in A.S.No.11 of 2010, the learned Subordinate Judge, Neyveli dismissed the same and hence the 1st defendant Arokiasamy filed S.A.No.551 of 2014 and the same was dismissed wherein it is observed in Para 14 as follows -
14. It is claim of the defendants that the plaintiff is in permissive possession and, therefore, the plaintiff has no title or possession. Once it is found that the defendants are the owners of the property and the plaintiff has not perfected title by adverse possession no relief of injunction can be granted to the plaintiff.
of 2014 have been filed before the Sub Court, Neyveli seeking the relief of
3
declaration of title under the registered sale deed dated 17.04.1984 and also stated that they preferred the title by adverse possession and obtained patta in their name and hence sought for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Another suit was filed in O.S.No.27 of 2014 stating that as per the decree in O.S.No.54 of 2000, they are in possession and they are seeking title as well as decree for possession.
contended that they are in adverse possession and also stated that the second suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
the first suit and second suit are not hit by Order II Rule 2 CPC since there https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4
is a prayer for recovery pursuant to the order passed in S.A.No.551 of 2014.
as respondents and perused the materials available on record.
has not framed necessary issue for determination in connection with Order II Rule 2 CPC and except relying upon the judgment of this Court in S.A.No.551 of 2014, no other finding is issued in other cases. Hence, the learned counsel appearing fore the appellants sought for admission of the Second Appeals.
a specific finding whether the respondents are entitled to recovery of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5
possession of the suit property in O.S.No.27 of 2014 from the defendant.
the Court, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that as per Exs.A1, A3 & A4, sale deeds in favour of the first and second plaintiffs are true, valid and genuine and also taken note of the judgment of this Court in S.A.No.551 of 2014 extracted supra which is marked as Ex.A19. The Trial Court has also held that the defendants have not filed any document to prove their title. The Lower Court has formulated necessary points for determination and at Para 18, has categorically rendered a finding that, based upon Exs.A3 & A4, the plaintiffs have proved that they the owners of the suit property and as per Ex.A19, their title has been confirmed by this Court in S.A.No.551 of 2014 in the suit filed by the defendants herein in the first round of litigation. There is a specific finding in the above said S.A.No.551 of 2014 (Ex.A19) that the plaintiffs herein have to seek the relief of possession by separate suit proceedings and accordingly, dismissed the suits . Consequently, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff and both the Courts have decreed the suit for title and for recovery of possession. Hence, I do not find any error in the current finding rendered by both the courts below which does not suffer any perversity. There is no material
6
mistake to interfere in the said judgment at this Appellate stage.
7
at the admission stage itself confirming the judgment and decree in A.S.Nos.13 & 14 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhachallam at Cuddalore dated 18.07.2023 in confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.Nos.104 of 2013 & 27 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Neyveli dated 18.11.2022. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
17.04.2024
Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order rgr
To
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhachallam at Cuddalore
2.The Subordinate Judge, Neyveli.
3.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
8
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J. rgr
Common Judgment in S.A.Nos.238 & 239 of 2024
17.04.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiffs proved title by sale deeds and prior decree in S.A.No.551 of 2014, entitling them to declaration and recovery of possession.
Whether the suits were barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.A.No.551 of 2014Relied on¶11
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Arokiasamy
Sammansmary
Gabriel
Rajrathnam
Periyanayagam
RMT.Teekaa Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
RMT.Teekaa Raman
Parties & counsel
