Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2307
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. MALA, J.
Muthu Pillai & Ors. - Defendants/Appellants/Appellants
Vs.
Kasi Pillai & Ors. - Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents
S.A.No.1884 of 2004 and C.M.P.Nos.15136 of 2004 and 143 of 2015
Decided On : 06.07.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellants : Mr. Y. Jyothish Chander.
For Respondents: Mr. B. Vijayakumar.
The suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable due to the cloud on the title, inaccurate property descriptions, and the plaintiffs' failure to prove lawful possession.
Headnote:
Property Dispute - Natham Poromboke - [No specific Act or Section referenced]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of a Natham Poromboke property. The defendants claimed ownership and possession of the property, disputing the plaintiffs' claims.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the property description and boundaries in the plaint were incorrect, and the plaintiffs failed to prove their lawful possession. The Court also noted discrepancies between the evidence presented and the pleadings. The Court held that the suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable due to the cloud on the title and directed the dismissal of the suit.
Issues: The Court considered substantial questions of law related to the interpretation of documentary evidence, the proper perspective of evidence, and the granting of injunction for a larger extent of boundaries than the suit schedule.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs must prove their case and cannot seek relief based on defects in the defendants' case. It also highlighted the need for accurate property descriptions and the requirement to come to court with clean hands when seeking discretionary relief.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of both lower courts were set aside. The original suit was dismissed, and the additional evidence petitions were allowed. No costs were awarded.
This second appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree 26.03.2004 in A.S.No.23 of 2000 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Kancheepuram, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 24.12.1999 in O.S.No.157 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthiramerur.
2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:-
The suit property is a Natham Poromboke. The plaintiffs have put up a hut for their dwelling purpose as late in the year 1965 and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property measuring East to West 60 feet and North to South 100 feet. The plaintiffs were also paying the property tax for the said hut. The Special Tahsildar, Natham Survey, Uthiramerur, issued patta in favour of the first plaintiff in the year 1996. While so, on 05.10.1997 the defendants who have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit property, attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and removed the Velikathan trees from the suit proeprty. The plaintiffs have also lodged a police complaint against the defendants. The plaintiffs have also apprehend that the defendants would interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, they filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
3. The gist and essence of written statement filed by the first defendant which was adopted by the second defendant are as follows:
The classification, survey number, boundaries and the measurements given in the plaint are incorrect. The suit filed against the defendants is not maintainable as the property purchased by the first defendant situated at No.46, Uthiramerur Somanathapuram comprised in Punja S.No.1222/9 in Patta No.2784. The Gramanatham whole survey number is 1228/1 and the new survey number is 1757/4 and there is no Gramanatham in S.No.1222/9 as described in the plaint schedule. It is false that the plaintiffs have put up a hut for dwelling purpose as late in the year 1965. The first defendant purchased an extent of about 0.7-1/2 cents on 04.07.01997 comprised in Punja S.No.1222/9 measuring East to West 14'' North to South 179''. Ever since the date of purchase, the first defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the said property and the plaintiffs have no right in the Punja S.No.1222/9 at all. The plaintiffs have obtained interim injunction against the defendants by giving wrong classification in respect of punja S.No.1222/9. Further, the defendants have filed Chitta for Fasli 1407 in respect of Punja S.No.1222/9 issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Uthiramerur Town, Patta No.2784 standing in the name of the defendants' vendor and the documents filed by the plaintiffs do not relate to S.No.1222/9. Hence, he pray for dismissal of the suit.
4. The Learned Trial Judge after considering the averments both in the plaint and written statement and arguments on either side counsel has framed necessary issues and on perusing the oral and documentary evidence viz., P.W.1, D.W.1, D.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A6 and Exs.B1 to B3, decreed the suit. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.23 of 2000 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Kancheepuram.
5. The learned First Appellate Court has considered the argument advanced on either side and framed necessary point for consideration and confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Against the Decree and Judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendants.
6. At the time of admission of the above second appeal, the following substantial questions of law we
