Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1548
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. RAJA
K. Subramani & Others
Versus
Deviammal & Another
Second Appeal No.215 of 2007 & M.P.Nos.2 of 2007 & 1 of 2012
Decided On: 28-03-2012
Advocate Appeared
For the Appellants:P. Valliappan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mrs. R. Gowri, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of a suit for mere injunction when there is a dispute over title, and the requirement for a comprehensive suit for declaration of title.
Headnote:
Injunction - Property Dispute - Sale deeds, Chitta, Legal Notices, Tax Receipts, Certificates - Ex.B1, Ex.B2, Ex.B3, Ex.B4, Ex.B5, Ex.B6, Ex.B7, Ex.B8, Ex.B9 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to the admissibility of additional evidence, the requirement for a comprehensive suit for declaration of title, and the limitations of a suit for mere injunction. The court also referenced the legal position as reinstated by the Apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy ((2008) 4 SCC 594) regarding the investigation of title in a suit for injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of a property and filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. The trial Court and first appellate Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs filed a second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the plaintiffs' claim for bare injunction was not maintainable due to the defendants' established ownership of the property. The Court also rejected the plaintiffs' request to adduce additional evidence and confirmed the concurrent findings of the lower Courts.
Issues: The issues included the admissibility of additional evidence, the maintainability of a suit for mere injunction, and the requirement for a comprehensive suit for declaration of title.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that a suit for bare injunction is not maintainable when there is a dispute over title, and the parties should be relegated to the remedy by way of a comprehensive suit for declaration of title. The Court also emphasized the limitations of a suit for mere injunction and the requirements under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code for adducing additional evidence.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the Court confirmed the concurrent findings of the lower Courts. The miscellaneous petition seeking to adduce additional evidence was rejected.
1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs, who after filing the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, having been non-suited by the trial Court as well as first appellate Court dismissing the suit, have filed the present second appeal.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the second appeal are given as under:-
The plaintiffs/appellants herein claimed the suit property, having an extent of 3.20 acres in S.No.162 of Kagguchi Village, has been in their possession and enjoyment, as a single plot with specific boundaries. An extent of 1.45 acres out of the total extent of 3.20 acres, has been cultivated by the plaintiffs' father, Kosai Kambattan, and after his death in the year 1984, the plaintiffs being sons of Kosai Kambattan continued to be in possession of the same along with their respective purchased lands, by paying necessary land revenue to the Revenue Department. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that they have inherited an extent of 1.45 acres from their father and an extent of one acre as well as 0.75 acres in the said S.No.162 of Kagguchi Village were purchased under the registered sale deed, dated 07.05.1991 and 30.10.1995, respectively and in all, an extent of 3.20 acres are under their possession. Though the defendants are co-owners of the suit survey No.162, they have absolutely no right to claim any interest or ownership thereon, for the reason that the names of the defendants are found in the revenue records. In this connection, when a legal notice dated 31.08.2002, was received claiming that the defendants are the owners of the survey No.162, a reply notice, dated 18.09.2002, was given by the plaintiffs asserting their right and ownership over the suit property. Ignoring the reply notice, when there was an attempt with the peaceful possession of the suit property, they filed a suit with the aforesaid prayer.
3. The defendants, denying the aforesaid averments, submitted that they are the owners of 2 acres in the suit survey field, as they are in possession of the same. Pleading so, they filed various supportive documents to establish their claims as follows:-
Ex.B1-sale deed, dated 01.02.1928, by which Kosai son of Kunda Kambattan, had sold an extent of 2 acres in favour of one Bellie son of Pathan;
Ex.B2-sale deed, dated 14.08.1934, by virture of which, the said Bellie had sold the said extent of 2 acres in the suit survey field to one Raniammal;
Ex.B3-Photostat copy of a sale deed, dated 06.09.1984, by which, both the defendants herein had purchased an extent of 2 acres from the aforesaid Raniammal;
Ex.B4-receipt dated 31.12.1984, issued by the Revenue Authorities in favour of the first defendant for the texes paid by her;
Exs.B5 and B6 - Tax receipts issued by the Revenue Authorities for the taxes paid by the second defendant;
Ex.B7 - a certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer of Kagguchi Village, certifying that the first defendant herein is in possession and enjoyment of 1 acre of land in the suit survey field.
Ex.B8 - a certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer, certifying that the second defendant is in possession and enjoyment of 1 acre of land in the suit survey field;
Ex.B9 - a copy of a communication, dated 28.06.2003, sent by the Branch Manager, Agalar Village to the second defendant;
Under these circumstances, the trial Court, after considering the case of either side, dismissed the suit. On appeal, when the matter was taken up before the first appellate Court, the learned first appellate Court has also affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, by dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. As against that, the present second appeal has been filed with the aforesaid prayer.
4. This Court, at the time of admission, framed the following substantial questions of law;-
a) Whether the Courts below are correct in law in non-suiting t
