Second appeal over title and injunction claim to a property used as a municipal temple, well and dumping depot. Plaintiff's admission in cross-examination that records show the property belongs to the Municipality supported concurrent dismissal of the suit; the High Court found no substantial question of law.
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.776 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.04.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
S.A.No.776 of 2022
D.Sekar
... Appellant
...Vs...
Gobichettipalayam Municipality Represented by The Commissioner, Municipality office Buildings, Gobi-Sathy Main Road, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.
... Respondent
PRAYER: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode at Gobichettipalayam dated 08.09.2021 made in A.S.No.1 of 2020 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam, dated 04.10.2019 made in O.S.No.26 of 2011.
For Appellant :: Mr.V.Anandhamoorthy
For Respondent :: Mr.B.Anand
1/8
S.A.No.776 of 2022
J U D G M E N T
The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. He filed a suit in O.S.No.26 of 2001 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam, seeking the declaration of his title and a permanent injunction.
2/8
S.A.No.776 of 2022
Chettiar under a registered sale deed dated 04.03.1976, which was dismissed as against him after full trial. Further, Andavar had preferred an appeal against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.497 of 1986 before this Court in A.S.No.51 of 1989, and the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, he preferred a Second Appeal No.1911 of 1991 before this Court and the same was also dismissed. Further, suppressing the suit in O.S.No.497 of 1986, one R.P.S.Mani @ Balasubramaniam, R.P.P.Balaraman @ Venkatraman had filed a suit regarding the suit property in O.S.No.18 of 2005, which was also dismissed for default.
3/8
S.A.No.776 of 2022
rl;lj;jpd; fPH; efuhl;rp ,lk; vd;gij bjhpe;J bfhz;nld;" Hence, the admission of P.W.1 shows that the suit properties are belonged to the
defendant-municipality and the subject matter of the property is marked as a municipality property for a free number of years, and having taken note of Ex.B1 District Munsif's Court provision litigation between the same municipality with another person and admission of P.W.1 in the cross-examination, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove his evidence and accordingly, dismissed.
4/8
S.A.No.776 of 2022
5/8
S.A.No.776 of 2022
O.S.No.26 of 2011, are confirmed.
15.04.2024
nvi
Neutral citation:Yes/No Speaking Order:Yes/No
To
6/8
S.A.No.776 of 2022
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,
nvi
Judgment in S.A.No.776 of 2022
7/8
S.A.No.776 of 2022
15.04.2024
8/8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff proved title and possession of the suit property claimed to be Municipality property.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D.Sekar
Gobichettipalayam Municipality Represented by The Commissioner
RMT.Teekaa Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
