Plaintiff sued for permanent injunction restraining Tirupattur Municipality from removing an encroaching superstructure over a channel poromboke after an encroachment notice. Courts below found the channel belonged to the Municipality, based on the plaintiff's own admission. The High Court refused to admit the second appeal and dismissed it.
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.643 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.01.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
S.A.No.643 of 2013 and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
Abdul Majeeth
... Appellant Vs.
The Commissioner, Tirupattur Municipality, Tirupattur Town & Taluk, Vellore District.
... Respondent
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside the judgment and decree in A.S.No.8 of 2009 dated 31.03.2011 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirupattur, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.78 of 2002 dated 03.04.2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirupattur by allowing this Second Appeal.
For Appellant : M/s.P.A.Sudhesh Kumar
For Respondent : Dr.S.Suriya, Additional Government Pleader
J U D G M E N T
This Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.8 of 2009 dated 31.03.2011 in confirming the judgment and decree
of the learned District Munsif, Tirupattur in O.S.No.78 of 2002 dated
Page 1 of 6
S.A.No.643 of 2013
03.04.2007.
Page 2 of 6
S.A.No.643 of 2013
suit came to be dismissed. The lower Appellate Court referred to Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 and held that the channel could be brought under the definition of drains attached to street. This Court had ordered notice of motion on 28.10.2013 returnable by two weeks. This Court did not admit the Second Appeal. Mr.P.A.Sudhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would plead that if at all anybody can take an action, it is the Public Works Department and not the Tirupattur Municipality.
Page 3 of 6
S.A.No.643 of 2013
and came to a conclusion that the property belonging to the respondent Municipality, it is entitled to initiate proceedings for eviction. Further, I
notice that though notice for removal of encroachment was issued on 04.04.2002, the said notice has not been challenged by the plaintiff in the suit. Even if there be an illegal order, it is for the plaintiff to seek for a declaration that the same has to be set aside. No relief of declaration has been sought for in the present case.
04.01.2024
skr Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
The Commissioner, Tirupattur Municipality, Tirupattur Town & Taluk,
Page 4 of 6
S.A.No.643 of 2013
Vellore District.
Page 5 of 6
S.A.No.643 of 2013
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
skr
S.A.No.643 of 2013
04.01.2024
Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal should be admitted where the plaintiff admitted in evidence that the suit channel property belongs to the respondent Municipality.
Whether a plaintiff who has not challenged the encroachment notice nor sought declaratory relief can obtain permanent injunction against eviction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Abdul Majeeth
The Commissioner, Tirupattur Municipality
V. Lakshminarayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
