Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.
Masilamani - Appellant
Versus
Shenbagarayanallur Panchayat, Rep. by its President, Shenbagarayanallur Post, Nagai & Another - Respondent
S.A. No. 1381 of 2003
Decided On : 03-01-2020
For the Appellant : S.K. Rakhunathan, Adv.
For the Respondents:S. Jagannadan, Government Advocate (CS).
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving obstruction and ownership in property disputes and highlights the application of relevant legal provisions in reaching a decision.
Headnote:
Injunction - Property Dispute - Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act 1994 - Sections 21, 231(1) and 232 - Judgment reported in 2001 (II) L.W.817 and 1987 (I) MLJ 409 - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the defendants who constructed a passenger shelter for a bus stop near the plaintiff's shops. The defendants claimed that the shops were constructed on government porambokku land and that the shelter did not obstruct the plaintiff's pathway.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the appellate court dismissed the suit, concluding that the shelter did not obstruct the plaintiff's pathway and that the plaintiff's claim was false. The court found no reason to interfere with the lower courts' findings and dismissed the second appeal.
Issues: Dispute over ownership of land, obstruction of pathway, application of relevant legal provisions, and substantial questions of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the shelter did not obstruct the plaintiff's pathway and that the plaintiff's claim was false. The court found no substantial question of law involved in the appeal.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree of the lower courts.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2003 passed in A.S.No.93 of 2002 on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.10.2002 passed in O.S.No.4 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam.
1. This appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2003 passed in A.S.No.93 of 2002 on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.10.2002 passed in O.S.No.4 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.
3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:-
3.1. The suit is filed for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The suit property comprised in Survey No.187/2A ad measuring 81 cents situated at southern side of Vedaraniyam to Thenpulam main road. Originally the suit property was purchased by the father of the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 30.01.1969, from one Anjammal, W/o. Athirathinam. The plaintiff is the only legal heir to his father and after his demise, the plaintiff derived the title over the property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The revenue records are also mutated in his name and he is paying revenue taxes regularly in his name. The respondents have no right, title or interest over the suit property. The plaintiff is also constructed shop premises in the land and as such the first defendant grudges for the same and obstructing the plaintiff’s shops tried to construct the building. The superior officer of the first defendant is the second defendant. If the construction is permitted to go on, it will affect the entire business of the plaintiff as such, he filed this suit for permanent injunction.
4. Resisting the same, the defendants filed written statement and stated that the shops constructed by the plaintiff are situated in the Government porambokku land and those places are belongs to the first respondent and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. In between the property belong to the defendants and the shops there is a place and the same is used by the general public for the time immemorial, in which already there was a hut and it was used as passenger shelter in the bus stop. It was dilapidated conditions and therefore the defendants decided to build R.C.C construction. In fact, the shops constructed by the plaintiff are situated in the porambokku land and as such except the said place no other place to construct the passenger shelter for the bus stop. Even before initiation of this suit, the plaintiff never caused any notice as contemplated under Sections 21, 231(1) and 232 of Tamil nadu Panchayat Act 1994. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and were marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4. On the side of the defendants D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.11 were marked. The Advocate Commissioner’s report and his plan were marked as Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2. On perusal of the material placed on record, both the oral and documentary evidences of the respective parties and the submissions made, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.93 of 2002 and the same is also dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. As against which, the present second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.
6. At the time of admission of this second appeal on 12.09.2003, the following substantial question of law were formulated for consideration:-
“1. Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below are vitiated by its failure to apply judgment reported in 2001 (II) L.W.817 and 1987 (I) MLJ 409 especially when the lower appellate Court had categorically found that
