Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 1250
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. RAJASURIA, J.
Murugesan
Versus
J. Kannayiram & Others
S.A. No. 1505 of 1990 & C.M.P. No. 62 of 2013
Decided on : 06-03-2013
For the Appellant :T.V. Krishnamachari, Advocate.
For the Respondents: No Appearance.
The main legal point established is that in property disputes, historical use and familial relations can influence the right to possession and injunctions.
Headnote:
Injunction - Property Dispute - Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 - Section 205 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendant to restrain interference with their possession of a property. The defendant resisted the suit claiming rights over the property due to familial relations and historical use.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs did not have exclusive rights over the property and that the first appellate court had erred in granting the injunction. The court set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and restored the judgment of the trial court.
Issues: The issues included the ownership of the property, the right to possession, and the proper interpretation of legal documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs did not have exclusive rights over the property as it was historically used by the defendant's family as well. The first appellate court's misinterpretation of legal documents and failure to properly consider the evidence led to the reversal of its judgment.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the first appellate court were set aside, restoring the judgment of the trial court.
1. This second appeal is focussed by the defendant, inveighing the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1987 passed by the District Judge, Chengalpattu, in A.S.No.123 of 1986 reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.10.1988 passed by the District Munsif, Chengalpattu, in O.S.No.317 of 1981, which is one for permanent injunction.
2. Despite printing the name of the counsel for the respondents, no one appeared and there is no representation also.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant.
4. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.
5. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:
(i) The original plaintiffs, namely, 1.J.Kannayiram and J.Shanmugam (the second plaintiff-J.Shanmugam died during the pendency of the second appeal, whereupon, his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 3 to 10), filed the injunction suit seeking the following relief.
"to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property." (extracted as such) specifying the following schedule of property:
SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY
In Chingleput town, Gundur Village, Chingleput Sub-Registration District and in S.No.371/2 of an extent o 21 feet east to west and 40 feet north to south bounded on the north by plaintiff's house on the south by Ellumalai Naicker's bakery, on the east by road and on the west by plaintiff's site occupied by Murugesan with shops.
On the main ground that the Government issued 'B' memo in the name of Jaganatha Naicker-father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also put up shops and paying the tax also. While so, the appellant/defendant, without any manner of right, is trying to disturb the plaintiffs' possession. Hence, the suit.
6. The defendant, namely, Murugesan (the second appellant herein) filed the written statement resisting the suit on various grounds. The gist and kernal of the defence would run thus:
(i) The said Jaganatha Naicker, in whose name 'B' memo was issued, is none but the brother of Vedachala Naicker, who is the father of the defendant. There is 'Kannikoil' adjacent to the suit property and the residential house of the defendant also is near to the temple and the source of ingress and egress for the said 'Kannikoil' and the residential structure of the defendant, is only the suit property.
(ii) In fact the suit property is sandwiched by G.S.T. Road, and the 'Kannikoil' premises.
(iii) Whereupon issues were framed. Up went the trial, during which, the second plaintiff-Shanmugam examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A22 were marked on the plaintiffs' side. On the defendant's side, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.Ws.2 to 4 and Exs.B1 to B17 were marked.
(iv) Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which, the plaintiffs preferred the appeal, whereupon, the first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
7. Challenging and impugning the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, this second appeal has been filed by the defendant on various grounds and also suggesting various substantial questions of law.
8. My learned predecessor formulated the following substantial questions of law:
"1. Whether the appellate Judge appreciated the case in a proper perspective as per facts of the case?
2. Whether the finding arrived at by the appellate Judge is based upon mis-reading of the recitals of Exts.A1 and Ex.A2 and photographs Exts.B1 and B2 and the misreading of the evidence of P.W.1 and D.Ws.1 to 4?
3. Whether the appellate Judge has properly framed all the issues?
4. Whether the appellate Court has properly looked into the documents filed while framing and deciding the issues?
5. Whether the appellate Court has properl
