Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2164
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. MALA, J.
Selvarathinathammal – Appellant
Versus
R. Rajeswari – Respondent
S.A. No. 1174 of 2000 & C.M.P. No. 249 of 2014
Decided On : 02-07-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :T.R. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for P. Veena, Advocate
For the Respondent:S.V. Jayaraman, Senior Counsel, K.V. Sundar Rajan, Advocate
Legal possession based on a valid sale deed and documents justifies the grant of permanent injunction.
Headnote:
ownership - property dispute - T.S.No.55/1 part, Block No.13, V.O.C. Nagar, Anna Nagar - Land Acquisition Act - Ex.A1 sale deed - legal possession - permanent injunction
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of a vacant land and filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant to restrain interference with her peaceful possession. The defendant denied the plaintiff's title and claimed ownership based on a sale deed. The trial court decreed the suit, which was confirmed by the first appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff proved legal possession based on the sale deed and documents, and the defendant's interference warranted the injunction. The court dismissed the second appeal and confirmed the decree and judgment of the lower courts.
Issues: The issues revolved around ownership, legal possession, and entitlement to the injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff's legal possession based on the sale deed and documents justified the grant of permanent injunction against the defendant's interference.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and the decree and judgment of the lower courts were confirmed.
1. The second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2000 in A.S.No.125 of 1997 on the file of IV Additional Court, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.09.1996 made in O.S.No.31 of 1995 on the file of I Assistant Court, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:-
(i) The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the vacant land measuring 4082 sq.ft. Comprised in T.S.No.55/1 part, Block No.13, V.O.C. Nagar, Anna Nagar and then she put up a thatched shed. She purchased the said property from S. Kuppusamy Naicker and S. Kanniappan by a sale deed dated 22.07.1981.
(ii) On 01.12.1994, some unknown people attempted to remove the bush and other shrubs in the suit property and on being questioned, they claimed that the suit property belongs to the defendant. The plaintiff immediately filed a complaint before the Anna Nagar police through her husband.
(iii) On summons by the police, the said persons informed that the defendant obtained a decree against some third parties and the plaintiff, who unaware of the proceedings, has nothing to do with the same, as she is not a party to that proceedings.
(iv) The plaintiff has also purchased another property by a sale deed dated 22.07.1981 from one Kalamagan measuring 4082 sq.ft. at T.S.No.137 part, V.O.C. Nagar. The plaintiff's brother has also purchased a property measuring 1113 sq.ft. from the said Kalamagan.
(v) The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property by adverse possession and she has got perfect title by virtue of the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her husband, her men, from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by trespass or by any other mode. Thus, the plaintiff has prayed for decree.
3. The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:
(i) The suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limini. The suit for permanent injunction without seeking a relief for declaration is unsustainable. When the title in respect of the property is specifically denied, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit by under valuing the property. The trial Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
(ii) The property is comprised in pymash Nos.1231 to 1234 and other properties originally belonged to one Krishtappa Naicker and the said Krishtappa Naicker had three sons. The defendant has purchased the suit property from one Balasundari for a valuable consideration of Rs.12,000/- through a registered sale deed dated 29.10.1982, but she did not put the defendant into possession of the said property, which resulted the defendant in filing the suit for recovery of possession against the said Balasundari and some other persons in O.S.No.5545 of 1983. That suit was decreed exparte and subsequently, exparte decree was set aside and the same was remitted for re-trial on merits. But that suit was dismissed by the trial Court, against which, the defendant preferred an appeal. During pendency of the appeal, defendant filed an application to appoint Advocate Commissioner to locate the suit property with the help of a surveyor and that application was allowed and the first appellate Court after going through the Commissioner's report, allowed the appeal. Subsequently, the defendant filed E.P.No.4012 of 1993 for taking delivery of the property and the same was allowed.
(iii) At this point of time, the legal heirs of the second defendant in the earlier suit namely, O.S.No.5545 of 1983 instigated the plaintiff to file the suit setting up title in her favour. The document filed by the plaintiff to support her case reveals that the property purchased by her in pymash Nos.1227 and 1228. The alleged purchase of the plaintiff does not relate to the property under execution. This defendant had no occasion to implead the plaintiff as a party since the
