Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 4413
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
P.S. Ulagaratchagan - Appellant
Vs.
Kanagavelpandi & Ors. - Respondents
S.A.No.367 of 2015 and C.M.P.No.15038 of 2018 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Decided On : 31-10-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. R. Thiagarajan, SC for M/s. P. Seshadri
For the Respondent: Mr. V. Chandrasekaran
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - Suit for bare injunction is maintainable -Trial Court -Against judgment -claimed the relief of permanent injunction –death - above said case of the plaintiff has been disputed by the first defendant in to and on the other hand first defendant would put forth that the entire extent of in old new survey suit village belonged to by way of the document and it is stated that and sold same in favor of by way of a sale deed along with members of her family had sold the same in favor of and Company by way of a sale deed – Held, In the light of the determination of the second substantial question of law against plaintiff it is unnecessary to discuss rival claims of title to the suit property as projected in matter in suit laid by plaintiff for relief of bare injunction and accordingly first substantial question of law is left unanswered as such - Principles of law outlined in decision reported in relied by the first defendant’s counsel are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to facts and circumstances of case at hand - Application has been laid by first defendant for reception of additional documents projected in petition - However inasmuch as suit laid by plaintiff is not legally sustainable for want of relief of declaration of title as above discussed, it is seen that petition laid by first defendant for reception of additional documents need not be considered - Furthermore first defendant having failed to establish as to why said documents had not been endeavored to be produced before the first appellate court, in such view of the matter, the application not satisfying the parameters governing Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C, on that ground also the petition for reception of additional documents deserves no acceptance. Accordingly Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.15038 of 2018 is dismissed As rightly put forth by defendant’s counsel, based on the revenue records Court cannot safely conclude that plaintiff’s alleged possession and enjoyment of suit property is lawful, particularly when defendants have also placed proof of possession and enjoyment of property in dispute and in such view of matter suit laid by plaintiff for bare injunction without seeking relief of declaration of title is held to be not maintainable as per law and the second substantial question of law formulated in Second Appeal is accordingly answered against the plaintiff – Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and Decree dated 16.12.2014 in A.S.No.134 of 2014 on the file of the XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2011 in O.S.No.5134 of 2008 on the file of the XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.
Challenge in this Second Appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2014 passed in A.S.No.134 of 2014 on the file of the XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2011 in O.S.No.5134 of 2008 on the file of the XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law.
(i) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in reversing the well considered of the Trial Court without proper appreciation of several exhibits produced on the side of the 1st defendant/appellant?
(ii) Whether the suit for bare injunction is maintainable without a prayer for declaration of title especially when the appellant had disputed the title of the plaintiff?
3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.
4. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction. However, the plaintiff has claimed the relief of permanent injunction based on the footing that she has acquired a valid title to the suit property by way of a sale deed dated 09.01.2017 and it is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property forming part of the major extent of 1 acre 29 cents had been settled to one Thulukanathammal, wife of Veerasamy by her father Chinnamari @ Mari by way of a sale deed dated 13.03.1988 and after her demise and her husband’s death, the same had been inherited by their son K.V. Godhandapani and it is stated that K.V. Godhandapani after settling the 12 ½ ground in favour of his son by way of a deed of settlement dated 13.08.2004 and selling a portion of 1200 sq.ft in plot No.1118 to one S. Megala, accordingly it is the case of the plaintiff that K.V. Godhandapani and his son Mohanraj had sold the suit property comprised in plot Nos.1118 and 1120 measuring a total of extent of 6000 sq.ft in the suit survey number in favour of the plaintiff by way of the sale deed 09.01.2007 and accordingly it is stated that the same is in the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment and inasmuch as the defendants without any authority, attempted to interfere with her possession and enjoyment, according to the plaintiff, she has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate relief’s.
5. The above said case of the plaintiff has been disputed by the first defendant in toto and on the other hand, the first defendant would put forth that the entire extent of 1 acre and 29 cents in old paimash Nos.542 and 543, new survey Nos.98/4 and 99/5 in the suit village belonged to Krishtappa Achari by way of the document dated 22.09.1934 and it is stated that Krishtappa Achari and Kuppachari sold the same in favour of Mrs. Egavalli Ammal by way of a sale deed dated 15.11.1954 and Mrs. Egavalli Ammal along with the members of her family had sold the same in favour of M/s. Pungka and Company by way of a sale deed dated 26.05.1965 and thereafter M/s Pungka and Company formed a lay out in respect of the above said property and other properties owned by them and obtained sanction and it is stated that M/s. Pungka and Company sold the plot No.1118 to one C. Arthanari Naidu by way of a sale deed dated 08.07.1965 and C.Arthanari Naidu sold the same in favour of K.R. Chandra by way of a sale deed dated 30.04.1982 and thereby K.R. Chandra entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the above said property with the first defendant on 10.02.1994 and executed the power of attorney in favour of the first defendant’s nominee and after receiving the sale transaction,
