Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 916
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
R. Pappa Naicker (Deceased) & Another - Appellant
Versus
P. Chinnaswami & Others - Respondent
S.A.No.449 of 2012
Decided On : 04-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :N. Manoharan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: S. Saravanakumar for M/s. I. Abrar Md.Abdullah
The judgment underscores the importance of specific property identification and boundaries in suits involving immovable properties, and the insufficiency of relying solely on revenue records and certificates of possession to establish exclusive possession and entitlement to injunction against co-owners.
Headnote:
Property Dispute - Ownership - Revenue Records - [Section 100 C.P.C.] - [Order 7 Rule 3 of C.P.C.]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed absolute possession of the suit properties and filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants who claimed co-ownership based on revenue records. The trial court granted injunction, but the first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding the property to be joint and not granting injunction against co-owners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit lacked specific boundaries and failed to sufficiently identify the properties, as required by Order 7 Rule 3 of C.P.C. It held that the plaintiff's reliance on revenue records and certificates of possession was insufficient to prove exclusive possession and entitlement to injunction.
Issues: Identification of suit properties, exclusive possession, entitlement to injunction, and compliance with procedural requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for specific property identification and boundaries in suits involving immovable properties. It held that mere reliance on revenue records and certificates of possession was insufficient to establish exclusive possession and entitlement to injunction against co-owners.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the court advised the parties to pursue their rights through a separate suit for partition and division of the property.
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree of Principal Sub Judge, Namakkal in A.S.No.161 of 2007 dated 28.07.2007 reversing the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.189 of 2005 of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi dated 18.04.2007.)
1. Aggrieved over the finding of the First Appellate Court allowing the appeal setting aside the judgment of the trial Court granting permanent injunction, present second appeal came to be filed.
2. The brief facts leading to file this Second Appeal is as under:
2.(a) The suit properties originally owned by one Rankappa Naicker and Palani Naicker. The Plaintiff has purchased the suit properties from Rankappa Naicker on 11.04.1962. Similarly, he has also purchased from one Palani Naicker on 13.09.1982. From the date of the above purchase the Plaintiff is in absolute possession of the property and enjoyment of the same and also paying kist receipts. The defendants have no right whatsoever in the suit properties. Patta, Chitta and Adangal also in the name of the Plaintiff. Defendants are third parties to the suit properties. They are neighbouring land owners. The Defendants 1 and 2 threatened the Plaintiff to sell the property and thereby on 14.12.2005 all the Defendants trespassed into the suit property. However, their attempt was thwarted. Hence, the Plaintiff filed the suit.
3. Defendants filed written statement denying entire allegation stating that the suit properties are the lands in Survey Nos.22/1 and 22/2 of Ramadevam Village, Malipatty. one Muthayi Ammal was owner of the properties in Survey No.22. From the said Mauthayi Ammal one Kondappa Naicker and one Rangappa Naicker purchased the entire properties in Survey No.22. Kondappa Naicker had two sons viz., 1) Rangappa Naicker and 2) Palani Naicker. Plaintiff is the grandson of said Rangappa Naicker. Defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of Palani Naicker. Similarly, Rangappa Naicker had three sons viz., 1) Chennappa Naicker 2) Periamuthu Naicker and 3) Chinnamuthu Naicker. One of the sons of the Rangappa Naicker namely Periya Muthu Naicker sold his share in the property to his brothers Chennappa Naicker and Chinnamuthu Naicker. Accordingly Chennappa Naicker and Chinnamuthu Naicker each entitled for 1/4th share in Survey No.22. Third Defendant has purchased 1/4th share on 23.08.2004 in Survey No.22/1 and 22. According to the defendants the Plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit property. Defendants 1 and 2 together are entitled to 1/4th share, 3rd Defendant is entitled to 1/4th share and 4th defendant is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit properties. The properties have not been partitioned. When the matter stood thus, the plaintiff has obtained revenue records in his name for Survey Nos.22/1, 22/2 without the knowledge of the Defendants. The same are not binding on the Defendants. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. The Trial Court based on the revenue records decreed the suit on the ground that at the relevant point of time the defendants have not produced any documents. Whereas the First Appellate court received additional documents and held that the property is joint properties of the co-sharers. Hence, dismissed the suit filed for bare injunction. As against which the present appeal filed by the Plaintiff.
5. The appeal is not admitted so far. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that under Ex.A.1 dated 11.4.1962 one of the sons of Kondappa Naicker viz., Rangappa Naicker sold the property in Survey No.21/2, 22/1 and 22/2 his share in respect of the share towards the plaintiff. Similarly on 13.9.1982 under Ex.A.2 one Palani Naicker, another son of Kodappa Naicker sold his share in survey No.22/2A, 22/C and half share in the well. Under Ex.A.3 Patta No.249 issued in the name of Pappa Naicker for survey Nos.22/1A, 22/1C, 22/1D and 22/2B. The revenue records clearly show that the plaintiff ever sin
