In a Second Appeal challenging a decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction, the High Court of Madras held that the appellant (defendant) failed to prove possession of the specific suit property and did not seek specific performance. The court dismissed the appeal.
Second Appeal dismissed; No costs; Connected Miscellaneous Petition 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.99 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.99 of 2024 and
C.M.P.No.2929 of 2024
Munusamy
… Appellant
Vs .
Karthivel (died)
1.Ayyamal
2.Selvi
3.Muniammal
4.Devi
5.Sivasakthivel ... Respondents
Prayer:- Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C to allow
the present appeal, thereby setting aside the concurrent judgment and decree passed in AS No.43/2016 dated 28.04.2023 on the file of Principal Sub Court at Tindivanam, confirming the judgment and
1/10
S.A.No.99 of 2024
decree passed in OS No.226/2011 dated 14.12.2015 on the file of the Principal District Munsif at Tindivanam CA No.1502/2023.
For Appellant : M/s.Chithra Devi
JUDGEMENT
The defendant who has concurrently lost before the Courts below
has filed the above Second Appeal challenging the said judgement and decree. The facts are set out herein below and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court.
2/10
S.A.No.99 of 2024
3/10
S.A.No.99 of 2024
entire sale consideration of Rs.6,000/- and had taken possession of the
4/10
S.A.No.99 of 2024
suit property. The plaintiff had also assured that since the entire sale consideration had been paid, he would be ready to come at any time when called for executing the sale deed. The defendant would further submit that the parties had agreed that there would be no enhancement of the sale consideration. The defendant would further submit that the plaintiff had been avoiding to execute the agreement of sale in his favour and has come forward with the present suit which is nothing but
a vexatious litigation.
Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4. On the side of the defendant, the defendant had
5/10
S.A.No.99 of 2024
examined himself as D.W.1 and one Annamalai and Govindan as D.W.2 and D.W.3 and marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.8.
6/10
S.A.No.99 of 2024
7/10
S.A.No.99 of 2024
proved his possession of the suit property and further, if really, the defendant had entered into an agreement of sale and was in possession of the same, he would have taken steps to have the agreement specifically enforced. However, no steps have been taken to seek a specific performance of the agreement of sale.
09.02.2024
Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No shr
8/10
S.A.No.99 of 2024
To
9/10
S.A.No.99 of 2024
P.T.ASHA, J.,
shr
S.A.No.99 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.2929 of 2024
09.02.2024
10/10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Second Appeal raises a substantial question of law warranting interference in the title of the suit property.
Whether the defendant has conclusively proved possession of the suit property through the evidence adduced during the trial.
Whether the agreement of sale agreement, being unregistered and relating to an adjacent property, bars the declaration of the plaintiff's title.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Munusamy
Karthivel (died)
1.Ayyamal
2.Selvi
3.Muniammal
4.Devi
P.T. ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
