This is a second appeal regarding a suit for injunction and partition. The High Court held that the lower appellate court correctly dismissed the appeal as the plaintiff failed to prove exclusive possession over the suit property. The second appeal was dismissed.
Second appeal dismissed; judgment and decree in appeal confirmed; Connected C.M.P. closed.
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.752 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.04.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
S.A.No.752 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.14720 of 2021
Mani @ Saradha
... Appellant
...Versus...
1.Lakshmi 2.Kamala 3.S.Saroja (Notice to the 3rd respondent may be dispensed with as she was set ex-parte)
...Respondents
PRAYER: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.89 of 2019 dated 11.02.2020 on the file of the learned II Additional Sub Judge, Salem, reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.359 of 2018 dated 16.09.2019 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Salem.
For Appellant :: Mr.V.Sekar
1/6
J U D G M E N T
S.A.No.752 of 2021
The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.359 of 2018 on the file of the learned IInd Additional District Munsif, Salem.
2/6
S.A.No.752 of 2021
Rule 27 and Section 151 of C.P.C to receive the additional documents. Counter has been filed in the said I.A.
3/6
S.A.No.752 of 2021
property and based upon the oral evidence of D.W.3 coupled with Exs.A8 to A10, the lower Appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the burden of proof in respect of Exs.A8 to A10 is on the shoulders of the plaintiff and therefore, in the absence of any official seal affixed in the said order under Ex.A2 and also taking note of the fact that Ex.A9 and Ex.A10 are not proved in the manner known to law has disbelieved the case of the plaintiff as to the alleged exclusive possession over the suit property and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Since the finding rendered by the lower Appellate Court is based upon the oral and documentary evidence, I am not unable to find any reasons to interfere with the said judgment.
4/6
S.A.No.752 of 2021
[i] This Second Appeal is dismissed.
[ii] The judgment and decree in A.S.No.89 of 2019 dated
11.02.2020 on the file of the learned II Additional Sub Judge, Salem, reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.359 of 2018 dated 16.09.2019 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Salem, are confirmed.
[iii] No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P is closed.
01.04.2024
nvi
Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order:Yes/No
To
5/6
S.A.No.752 of 2021
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,
nvi
Judgment in S.A.No.752 of 2021and C.M.P.No.14720 of 2021
01.04.2024
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Second Appeal should be allowed as the lower appellate court failed to consider the exclusive possession of the plaintiff.
Whether the burden of proof regarding documentary evidence weighing against exclusive possession was rightly placed on the plaintiff.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mani @ Saradha
Lakshmi
Kamala
S.Saroja
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
