Second appeal by defendant against reversal of dismissal of plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction based on claimed tenancy of land owned by deceased Moorthyammal. Court held forensic report proved defendant's signature on lease deed Ex.A6, and defendant failed to prove his own possession; substantial questions answered in plaintiff's favour; 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.No.422 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.422 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.8024 of 2021
R.Perumal …Appellant
Vs
Perumal
...Respondent
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.11 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Erode, dated 24.01.2020 reversing O.S.No.64 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi dated 04.01.2017.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Arun
For Respondent : Mr.V.S.Kesavan
JUDGMENT
1/18
S.A.No.422 of 2021
The defendant is the appellant before this Court. The facts that
has resulted in filing of the second appeal are herein below set out and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the trial Court.
the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from evicting the plaintiff from the suit property except by due process of law. The suit property is herein below set out.
Description of properties
<nuhL. hpo. bfhLko rg;o. <nuhL tl;lk;. brd;drkj;jpuk; fpuhkk;. g[jpa f/r/226-1 be/g[/bcw/0/35/0f;F j/U: 0/70. g[jpa f/r/226-6. be/g[/bcw/1/13/0 f;F j/U:/2/26 (,jd; giHa f/r/40) ,jpy; fl;Lg;gl;l brhj;Jf;F brf;Fg;ge;jp tpguk;/
re;jpud; tifawh ghf g{kpf;Fk; tlf;F.
2/18
S.A.No.422 of 2021
fhsp';fuhad; tha;f;fhYf;Fk; fpHf;F. Futg;g eha;L g{kpf;Fk; bjw;F. Mh;/tp/uhkrhkp. u';frhkp tifawh ghf g{kpf;Fk; nkw;F. ,jd; kj;jpapy; cs;s g[/V/0/56 tp!;jPuzKs;s g{kp g{uht[k; gpd;Dk;
3/18
S.A.No.422 of 2021
Moorthyammal. The plaintiff would submit that ever since he has been in possession of lands and personally cultivating the same The lease deed was being renewed periodically till the life time of Moorthyammal. Moorthyammal died in the year 2001 and she had no legal heirs to succeed her estate.
4/18
S.A.No.422 of 2021
been periodically renewing the rent under a Lease Deed dated 15.01.2011. The lease was renewed for a further period of 11 months effective from 15.01.2011 on a rental of Rs.750/-. The plaintiff is in possession of the property as a cultivating tenant. The plaintiff would submit that he is cultivating turmeric in the said lands and has recently harvested the crops.
6.While so, all of a sudden, the defendant had met the plaintiff' and demanded enhanced rent of Rs.10,000/- without any basis. When the plaintiff had politely informed him that the same could not be paid, the defendant had threatened the plaintiff stating that he would not be permitted to cultivate the lands.
7.On 22.06.2011, the defendant and his rowdy elements attempted to trespass into the suit property forcibly. With the help of
5/18
S.A.No.422 of 2021
the neighbours, the plaintiff has, however, repelled this attempt. The plaintiff would submit that the defendant is a rich man with a great deal of influence in the locality and therefore, he has come forward with the above suit.
6/18
S.A.No.422 of 2021
defendant would submit that the plaintiff is a total stranger with regard to the suit property. The defendant would further submit that the plaintiff had an eye on the suit property and had requested him to sell it for a meagre sum, which was refused by the defendant. Aggrieved by this, the plaintiff has fabricated the documents and filed the suit. The plaintiff is not a cultivating tenant and was never in possession of the suit property. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the suit. The defendant had also pleaded that the cause of action set out in the plaint was a false one.
ghpfhuk; mspf;fj;jf;fjh>
(ii) ntW vd;d ghpfhuk; thjpf;F mspf;fj;jf;fJ>
7/18
S.A.No.422 of 2021
of imagination would Moorthyammal has leased out the property for a meagre sum of Rs.600 /- per annum. That apart, the trial Court had also held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the cause of action, namely, the attempted trespass on 22.06.2011. The learned Judge observed that the plaintiff has not proved possession of the property through valid documents and oral evidence. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed. Challenging the same, the plaintiff had filed A.S.No.11 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Erode. The learned
8/18
S.A.No.422 of 2021
Principal Subordinate Judge, on perusing the evidence, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and allowed the appeal. Challenging the same, the defendants are before this Court.
that Moorthyammal has never entered into any lease agreement with any third party, including the plaintiff. He would submit that it is the defendant who is in possession of the property and cultivating it, which is evident from a perusal of Ex.B1-lease Deed. He would submit that the appellate Court has totally overlooked the reasons that have been given by the trial Court for dismissing the suit which are as follows:
(i) The oral evidence of P.W3.
(ii) The plaintiff's name does not find a place in the
Adangal extracts.
(iii) The lease amount is very meagre as the rent
9/18
S.A.No.422 of 2021
under Ex.B1 was a sum of Rs.2,500/- per annum as early
as in the year 1997.
(iv) The trial Court had held that the description of
the property has not been properly given in the lease agreement.
persons who were involved in disturbing the plaintiff's
possession.
He would also submit that the lower appellate Court has been totally swayed by the report of a handwriting expert, which was not at all marked as evidence. He would further submit that the lower appellate Court has wrongly observed that the defendant has not stated that as to how the fraud was played by the plaintiff in creating Exs.A1 to A3 . He would submit that, being a suit for bare injunction, the Court should take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff and ought to have
dismissed the suit.
10/18
S.A.No.422 of 2021
of law:
1. Whether the appellate Court was right in
11/18
S.A.No.422 of 2021
reversing the judgment of the trial Court without setting aside the finding on admission of the respondent / plaintiff?
2. Whether the appellate Court was right in not considering the evidence of P.W1 regarding cause of action for the suit, when he could not able to state when and who was the persons disturbed his possession?
the property which he has taken on lease from Moorthyammal. It is an
12/18
S.A.No.422 of 2021
admitted case that the property belonged to Moorthyammal and Moorthyammal had died issueless. The defendant had stated that Moorthyammal had executed a Will (which was not marked as evidence) under which the suit property was bequeathed to him. The plaintiff does not dispute the said bequest. The plaintiff would further submit that after the demise of Moorthyammal, the lease was being renewed by the defendant after receiving the rents and the lease agreement was being reduced into writing. The last such deed was in the year 2011 which was marked as Ex.A6. The defendant had stated that he had not entered into any lease deed with the plaintiff and neither had Moorthyammal. It also appears that since there was a dispute with reference to signatures of the defendant in these documents, the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi had referred the document to the Forensic Department to verify the disputed signatures with that of the admitted signatures. An advocate Commissioner was appointed in this regard, who was directed to take the disputed
13/18
S.A.No.422 of 2021
signature and the admitted signatures to the Tamil Nadu Finger Print Bureau for obtaining a report. The disputed signature has been compared with the admitted signatures. The Forensic Department has also sought for further particulars, which have also been provided and ultimately, a report has been given stating that the signatures in Ex.A6 and the admitted signatures are one and the same. Therefore, the signatures of the defendant in Ex.A6-Lease Deed dated 15.01.2011 stood proved. Therefore, the first argument of the defendant that neither the defendant nor the Moorthyammal have inducted the plaintiff as a tenant stood disproved.
14/18
S.A.No.422 of 2021
the deceased Moorthyammal. The defendant has produced Exs.B5 and B6, however, both of which dated 25.04.2011 (after institution of the suit) indicate that the amount due towards the several Faslis were being paid by way of a single payment. Therefore, the defendant has not proved that he is cultivating the property as a tenant from the year 1997. On the contrary, the plaintiff has proved possession by producing the lease agreement which was being periodically extended and also producing Ex.A6, which is the lease agreement signed by the defendant in and by which he has leased out the property to the plaintiff. There is nothing on record to show that as to when and how the plaintiff has been dispossessed. Therefore, the fact that the defendant has pleaded that there is no lease agreement between the plaintiff and himself or the plaintiff and the deceased Moorthyammal and that the plaintiff is not in possession of the property and that the plaintiff is not in possession of the property is by itself proof of his disturbing the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has pleaded that
15/18
S.A.No.422 of 2021
01.02.2024
16/18
S.A.No.422 of 2021
Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order srn
To
17/18
S.A.No.422 of 2021
P.T.ASHA, J.,
srn
S.A.No.422 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.8024 of 2021
01.02.2024
18/18
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower appellate court rightly reversed the trial court's dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction based on a tenancy in favour of the plaintiff.
Whether the defendant's signature on Ex.A6 lease deed dated 15.01.2011 was proved, establishing the plaintiff as cultivating tenant.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.Perumal
Perumal
P.T. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
