Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 1246
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of ownership rights and legal documents in property disputes, and the requirement to establish cause of action for seeking injunction.
Headnote:
Injunction - Property Dispute - [O.S.No.317 of 1981] - The judgment discusses the legal provisions related to the issuance of 'B' memo by the Government, ownership rights, and the procedures for granting injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the 'B' memo, ownership of the suit property, and the failure to establish cause of action for the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendant to restrain interference with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendant resisted the suit on various grounds related to ownership and right to the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 'B' memo issued by the Government stood in the name of Jaganatha Naicker, who was related to both the plaintiffs and the defendant. It concluded that the plaintiffs were not justified in seeking injunction as against the defendant. The court also highlighted the misunderstanding of evidence and documents by the first appellate Court.
Issues: The issues included the ownership rights, entitlement to injunction, and the interpretation of legal documents related to the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the 'B' memo, ownership of the suit property, and the failure to establish cause of action for the suit. It also emphasized the misreading of evidence and documents by the first appellate Court.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree of the first appellate Court were set aside, and the judgment of the trial Court was restored. The second appeal was allowed with no costs.
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 properly followed t
