The appellant challenged decrees confirming the plaintiff's title and granting permanent injunction. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that no substantial question of law was made out and the lower courts' findings on possession and title were correct based on prior litigation history.
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.39 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.39 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.867 of 2024
A.K.Sathiyamoorthy … Appellant
Vs .
K.Ravishankar
Prayer:- Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the Judgement and decree dated 26.11.2018 made in A.S.No.10 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judges Court at Namakkal confirming the Judgement and decree dated 11.12.2009 made in O.S.No. 309 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Namakkal.
For Appellant : M/s.T.L.Thirumalaisamy
1/12
S.A.No.39 of 2024
JUDGEMENT
The defendant is the appellant before this Court. The facts are set
out briefly herein below and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court.
2/12
S.A.No.39 of 2024
Additional District Munsif, Namakkal for a declaration and permanent injunction stating that the property belongs to them exclusively. After Trial, the said suit was dismissed and an appeal preferred against the same was also dismissed.
3/12
S.A.No.39 of 2024
enjoyment of the suit property. He had also obtained a loan on the security of the suit property.
4/12
S.A.No.39 of 2024
plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff had come forward with the suit in question.
5/12
S.A.No.39 of 2024
6/12
S.A.No.39 of 2024
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
permanent injunction as prayed for?
2. Whether the decree in O.S.No.198/1985 will
bind the defendant ?
3. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?
Ex.A.1 to A.13 were marked. On the side of the defendant, 3 witnesses
were examined and Ex.B.1 to B.16 were marked.
7/12
S.A.No.39 of 2024
the plaintiff herein and his father for a declaration and injunction on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Namakkal. The learned District Munsif, on perusing the evidence dismissed the suit and held that it was the the defendants therein, namely, the plaintiff herein and his father who were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The learned Judge had observed that the plaintiff herein and his father had proved their title to the property in question by
8/12
S.A.No.39 of 2024
producing the documents issued in his favour under the Inam Estates Abolition Act.
9/12
S.A.No.39 of 2024
the sale deed executed in his favour by persons whose suit for declaration of title had been dismissed.
13.02.2024
Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No shr
10/12
S.A.No.39 of 2024
To
P.T.ASHA, J.,
11/12
S.A.No.39 of 2024
shr
S.A.No.39 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.867 of 2024
13.02.2024
12/12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the defendant/appellant disclosed a substantial question of law warranting interference in the second appeal?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction based on established possession and title?
A.K.Sathiyamoorthy
K.Ravishankar
P.T. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
