Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 3125
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN
Chembian Selvan & Others
Versus
Rathinakumar & Another
S.A.No.1016 of 1994
Decided on: 12-08-2009
For the Appellants:T. Gowthaman, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R.T. Shyamala, Advocate.
In a suit for mere injunction, only the question of possession needs to be considered, not issues relating to title.
Headnote:
Possession - Permanent Injunction - O.S.No.71 of 1991 - S.23/1 - Siva temple - Village community - Arooran Sugar Mill - Ex.A-1 - Ex.A-2
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction against defendants interfering with their possession of suit properties. Defendants claimed properties belonged to village community and were not in possession of plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
Trial Court found plaintiffs in possession of suit properties and decreed in their favor. First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
Issues: Whether plaintiffs entitled to permanent injunction, correctness of property description, possession of first item of suit properties, and other reliefs for plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for mere injunction, only the question of possession needs to be considered, not issues relating to title. Courts found plaintiffs in possession with sufficient documentary evidence.
Final Decision: Second appeal dismissed as appellants failed to show findings of lower courts unsustainable in law. No substantial question of law arose for consideration.
This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 111. 1993, made in A.S.No.21 of 1992, on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 1. 1992, made in O.S.No.71 of 1991, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nannilam.
2. The appellants in the present second appeal were the defendants in the suit, in O.S.No.71 of 1991. The plaintiffs in the suit who are the respondents herein, had filed the original suit, in O.S.No.71 of 1991, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nannilam, praying for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants in the suit, restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties.
3. The second plaintiff is the son of the first plaintiff. They are living together as a joint family. The joint family was owning 7 acres of lands and the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs were cultivating sugarcane crop in the properties. The plaintiffs had entered into an agreement with Arooran sugar mill situated in the area for supplying sugarcane, for the year 1990-1991. Arooran sugar mill had entered into the agreement only after making necessary enquiries and after verifying the records relating to the possession of the property, which was said to be in the possession of the plaintiffs. Based on the agreement, the sugar mill concerned had been supplying the necessary ingredients for the cultivation of sugarcane. No other person has any right in respect of the sugarcane crop cultivated by the plaintiffs. When the sugarcane crop was ready for harvesting, the defendants in the suit had attempted to disturb the plaintiffs peaceful possession of the suit properties. Therefore, a police complaint had been lodged by the plaintiffs in Kodavasal Police Station. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs had filed the suit in O.S.No.71 of 1991, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nannilam.
4. In the written statement filed on behalf of the second defendant which has been adopted by defendants No.1, 4 and 6, it has been stated that the plaintiffs had given wrong particulars in the plaint. S.F.No.23/1 is not in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. The said land belongs to the villagers, as a common property. The defendants are villagers belonging to Arivizhi Mangala Village. The community properties are administered by the elders of the village, designated as `Nattanmaikarargal. The defendants are also part of the group of Nattanmaikarargal of the village. The plaintiffs have not stated as to who is the owner of 1 acre and 70 cents, in S.F.No.23/1. It has also not been stated as to how the plaintiffs had obtained possession of the suit properties and as to what is their right to claim the relief of injunction in respect of the suit properties. The plaintiffs had stated that the properties in issue is a joint family property. The defendants are stoutly denying the claim of the plaintiffs that the suit properties are joint family properties and that the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and occupation of the said properties.
5. It has been further stated that, along with the suit schedule properties, certain other properties are also belonging to the village community. Even though some of the lands are in the possession of various persons, the suit schedule properties of 1 acre and 70 cents, in S.F.No.23/1, is in the possession of the village community. The income obtained from the properties is spent on the maintenance of the temples in the village. From the lease agreement filed by the plaintiffs it is seen that the properties are in the name of one P.K.Subramaniam. In fact, P.K.Subramaniam is not the absolute owner of the property in S.F.No.23/1. Further, he does not have the power or the authority to grant lease in respect of the land in question. The claim of the plaintiffs that they are cultivating the suit p
