Second appeal against reversal of a decree for permanent injunction over land purchased from Narayana Iyer's heirs under a 1990 sale deed with possession from 1980. The High Court found the plaintiff proved title and possession through sale deed, patta and kist receipts, restored the trial court's decree, and allowed the appeal.
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.
SA. No.515 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
SA. No. 515 of 2009
... Appellants
Vs.
1
SA. No.515 of 2009
3 NEELAMBAL
4 KALA
5 UMA
8 SARAVANAN 9 MOORTHY 10 THARANI
(Respondent 3 TO 10 B/R AS LRS OF THE DECEASED 1st respondent viz RANGANATHANVIDE COURT ORDER DATED 08/09/2021 MADE IN CMP)
14502 OF 2020 IN SA 515 OF 2009(RHJ)
...Respondents
PRAYER : This Second appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree in A.S No. 112 of 2002 dated 06.08.2003 on the file of the District Judge, Thiruvannamalai setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S No. 402 of 1999 dated 31.10.2002 on the file of the Additional District Munsiff, Thiruvannamalai.
For Appellants : Mr.P.M.Subramaniam, senior counsel
2
For R2 : Mr. R.Abdul Mubeen For R3 to R10: Mr.Suresh.
SA. No.515 of 2009
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree in
A.S No. 112 of 2002 dated 06.08.2003 on the file of the District Judge, Thiruvannamalai setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S No. 402 of 1999 dated 31.10.2002 on the file of the Additional District Munsiff, Thiruvannamalai.
SA. No.515 of 2009
agreement dated 30.12.1980 the possession of the property was delivered to him in the year 1980 itself. Therefore, even from the year 1980 onwards the plaintiff was in possession of the property thereafter he became the absolute owner as per the sale deed of the year 1990. After that, he obtained patta under UDR scheme for the said property. While so, the defendant 1 and 2 father and son who have no right over the property falsely claimed that they are the real owners of the property by way of possession and enjoyment of the property for more than three decades. Therefore, they raised objection before the revenue authorities in respect of issuance of patta, on enquiry on 04.02.1993 their application was dismissed against which they preferred an appeal before the DRO and the same also dismissed in the year 1996. Thereafter, the defendant attempted to trespass the property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.
SA. No.515 of 2009
first defendant and his grandfather were in possession and enjoyement of the property and they have title over the same but by giving false information the plaintiff obtained patta and also the description found in the sale deed, partition deed totally differs thereby the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as he claimed in the suit prayed to dismiss the suit.
SA. No.515 of 2009
appellate Judge not accepted that the suit property originally belongs to the Narayaan Iyer family. Accordingly, appeal was allowed thereby suit was dismissed by concluding that defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
SA. No.515 of 2009
ignoring the Ex.A3 to A8?
SA. No.515 of 2009
of the property from the date of the alleged sale agreement of the year 1980 by the plaintiff.
SA. No.515 of 2009
30.12.1980 sale agreement was arrived between the parties and subsequently in the year 1990 by confirming the sale agreement the sale
deed was executed for the valid consideration by the legal heirs of the Narayana Iyer family. Even though there is no other document to show that from the year 1980 the plaintiff is in enjoyment of the property the recitals in registered sale deed clearly established that from the year 1980 property was handed over by the vendors to the plaintiff. However, defendant's not produced any document to disprove the recitals of the written document Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 . As rightly pointed out by the Trial Court there is no evidence on the side of the defendant to disprove the plaintiff's document. Further as rightly held by the Trial Court the plaintiff was in possession from the year 1980 which needs no interference of this Court. After purchase the plaintiff obtained the patta from the revenue authorities and the same was proved by him and the same was challenged by the defendants before the revenue authorities but the authorities confirmed the patta. Admittedly, as per the findings of the DRO the plaintiff's proved his title, he is entitled for the patta, as on date order is in force not been set aside by any other higher authorities. After issuance of patta in the year 1992 the plaintiff paid kist which was marked as Ex.A4 to Ex.A8 which is sufficient to 9
SA. No.515 of 2009
establish that the plaintiff in possession of the property. The first appellate judge erroneously concluded that plaintiff not proved his possession and enjoyment of the suit property as well as the document relied by the plaintiff by ignoring Ex.A3 to Ex.A8 as such is unjust and liable to be set aside. Accordingly finding of the first appellate judge is set aside and question of law 1 is answered.
10
SA. No.515 of 2009
that effect he relied the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of
Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy(Dead) by LRs. & others reported
in 2088(6) CTC 237:
11. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly.
11.1) Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.
11.2) Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.
11.3) Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of
11
SA. No.515 of 2009
plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.
12
SA. No.515 of 2009
the records, it reveals that the plaintiff relied the Ex.A1 to A2 title deed of himself and his predecessors' title thereby contended that by way of purchase through sale agreement dated 30.12.1980 he was in possession and enjoyment of the property to that effect he produced title deed and patta, kist receipt. Though the extent is varies as per settled proposition the same can be proved by the boundaries and also the plaintiff proved through Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 who was in possession of the property for more than 3 decades and also identified the property through sale deed belongs to one Vijayanaryaan Iyer. Moreover, the order passed by the revenue authorities also proved that after considering his title and possession the patta was granted in favour of plaintiff. The objection raised by the defendant was dismissed by the revenue authorities which is still in force. But there is no document adduced on the side of the defendants that they enjoyed the property. Considering all the documents, plaintiff have better title than the defendant the same was rightly observed by the Trial Court but the first appellate court erroneously dismissed the suit that the relief of declaration was not specifically prayed in the suit without which findings of the Trial Court in respect of title of the property is to be ignored but the plaintiff established his title hence the relief of permanent injunction is sufficient. 13
SA. No.515 of 2009
The judgement relied by the plaintiff is squarely applicable to this case but the authorities relied by the defendants is not support this case. Accordingly, questions of law 2 and 3 are answered.
13.06.2024
pbl
14
SA. No.515 of 2009
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
Pbl
To
SA. No.515 of 2009
13.06.2024
15
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the first appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's finding on possession despite Ex.A3 to Ex.A8.
Whether a suit for bare permanent injunction without declaration is maintainable where title is disputed.
Whether the plaintiff proved possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. & othersRelied on¶12
2088(6) CTC 237
Venkatachalam and another Vs. NallathambiReferred¶13
2013 (4) CTC 45
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Titus Devacheyal
M.Justin Manvalan
M.Janat Priyadarshini
M.Mercy Rani
Ranganathan (died)
Raghuraman
T.V.Thamilselvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
