Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
T. RAJA
S.R. Selvaraj & Others
Versus
Krishna Rathi Ammal & Others
Second Appeal No.1458 of 2007 & CRP NPD No. 3952 of 2008 & MP Nos. 1 of 2007, 1 to 3 of 2008 & 1 of 2011
Decided on: 01-10-2012
Injunction - Property Dispute - S. 84/1A, Neelankarai Village - [S. 84/1A, Neelankarai Village] - [S. 10 of CPC, Res Judicata] - The courts held that the suit for permanent injunction alone filed by the plaintiff cannot be legally maintained. The plaintiffs failed to prove payment of consideration and possession of the suit property. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. The appellate court agreed with the findings and conclusion reached by the trial court. The Second Appeal was filed against the concurrent findings of the courts below. The court held that the suit filed by the defendants for injunction was dismissed and the suit filed by the plaintiffs was also dismissed; therefore, nobody would be in a position to claim any relief. The court also held that the suit filed by the defendants was withdrawn after the dismissal of the First Appeal filed by the plaintiffs; therefore, the same would operate as res judicata. The court also held that the revision petitioners failed to produce any kist receipt for the period from the date of purchase till the date of filing of the suit and that they also did not file any documentary evidence to prove that their predecessors in interest were in possession of the suit property. The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition as the revision petitioners failed to produce the documents either voluntarily to well substantiate their case or on demand through legal notices by the respondents to negative the strong claim of the other side.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs claimed that they purchased the property in Survey No.84/1-A, Neelankarai Village, and were put into possession. They filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The trial court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove payment of consideration and possession of the suit property. The suit was dismissed. The appellate court agreed with the findings and conclusion reached by the trial court and dismissed the Appeal. The Second Appeal was filed against the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Finding of the Court:
The courts held that the suit for permanent injunction alone filed by the plaintiff cannot be legally maintained. The plaintiffs failed to prove payment of consideration and possession of the suit property. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. The appellate court agreed with the findings and conclusion reached by the trial court and dismissed the Appeal. The Second Appeal was filed against the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Issues: The issues included whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyed the suit property, whether the suit for permanent injunction without the prayer for declaration is maintainable, and whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit for permanent injunction alone filed by the plaintiff cannot be legally maintained. The plaintiffs failed to prove payment of consideration and possession of the suit property. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. The appellate court agreed with the findings and conclusion reached by the trial court and dismissed the Appeal. The Second Appeal was filed against the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal and the Civil Revision Petition were dismissed as devoid of any merit. No costs were awarded. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions were also dismissed.
1. The present Second Appeal and the Civil Revision Petition were directed to be listed before this Court as 'specially ordered cases' along with Writ Petition No.26002 of 2001 filed by respondents-3 to 7 in the Second Appeal as against the impugned order dated 15.12.2001 passed by the R.D.O., Chengalpattu. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, it seems that R3 to R7 in the Second Appeal/petitioners in the W.P. filed Revision before the authority concerned. Therefore, for proper disposal of the pending revision petition, the Writ Petition is ordered to be de-linked and consequently, the interconnected Second Appeal and the CRP are taken up for joint hearing and now, disposed of by this Common Judgment.
2. The unsuccessful plaintiffs before both the courts below have brought this Second Appeal, challenging the Judgment and decree, dated 06.03.2007, passed by the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in A.S. No.707 of 2006 on 06.03.2007, in and by which, the judgment and decree, dated 21.07.2006, passed by the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, refusing to grant an order of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants herein, restraining the defendants and their men and agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property situated at No.145, New No.134, Neelankarai Village, Saidapet Taluk, bearing survey No.84/1A measuring an extent of 1 acre and 50 cents, came to confirmed.
3. Brief facts which ultimately led to the filing of the present Second Appeal are given as under:-
i) The plaintiffs, in their plaint filed before the trial court, claimed that they purchased the property in Survey No.84/1-A, Door No.3/545, East Coast Road (ECR), Neelankarai, to an extent of 1.50 acres in Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District, from defendants-1 and 2 under registered sale deed dated 15.09.2000 and subsequently, they were also put into possession thereof. Further, temporary shed was put up therein and also, a Watchman was posted to look after the property and to safeguard their interests. The plaintiffs came to understand that their vendors/defendants-1 and 2, joining hands with defendants-3 to 7, were trying to dispossess the plaintiffs for the reasons best known to them based on some subsequent alleged agreements, and reacting to such act, a police complaint was lodged with C-9 Police Station, ECR, Neelankarai, Chennai-41, against the defendants, but, the police were reluctant to take any action to stop the illegal attempts by the defendants. Therefore, ultimately, they were constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property described in the plaint schedule.
ii) A brief written statement was filed by defendants-1 and 2 by stating that the suit is not maintainable both on law and facts. It was further stated that the first defendant is a joint owner along with the 2nd defendant by virtue of a deed of compromise. While so, the first defendant sold and handed over possession of the suit property on the date of execution of the sale deed dated 15.09.2000. According to them, when the 1st defendant was made as a vendor and the 2nd defendant as a confirming party in the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, the allegation made cannot be sustained and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
iii) A detailed written statement was filed by the Power Agent-one A.R.Suresh on behalf of defendants-3 to 7. It is stated that the suit is not maintainable since the plaintiffs base their claim through a fabricated and unregistered document alleged to have been executed during the pendency of a litigation. The property situated at Door No.3/545, ECR, Neelankarai village, forms part of larger extent of land in S.No.84 and in paimash Nos.166, 167, 168/A and 170/A of a total extent of 20 acres and 85 cents, originally belonged to one Bo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
