Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Muthuveeran - Appellant
Versus
Rathinagiri (Died) & Ors. - Respondents
S.A.(MD) Nos.1088 to 1091 of 2006 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1,1,1 and 1 of 2006
Decided On : 17-02-2020
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Alone entitled to share in suit property - Suit property - First defendant is owner of property situate immediately west suit property - In document of title first defendant plaintiffs schedule property is shown as eastern boundary dividing schedule property belonging to plaintiff and property of first defendant there is regular north to south fence – Thus plaintiff is in possession of suit property - Defendants made an attempt to trespass into suit property – Held, Therefore, merely because some boundaries have been given that itself cannot be ground to hold that property belonged to plaintiffs family - Settlement Register filed clearly indicates that property in stands in name of father plaintiff in extent of cents stands in name plaintiff in first defendant and one Minor by his guardian – Further possession is also not established by plaintiff in respect of suit property - Whereas plaintiff in other suit filed relevant revenue records pertaining besides tax receipts and patter - Those revenue records certainly prove his possession – Therefore merely on basis of tax receipts paid in some other house which is situated nearby to suit property plaintiff in cannot prove his possession - Whereas in his plaint he suppressed existence of tenant in suit property but first defendant has proved same by filing fifth defendant also admitted fact - All these facts clearly show that plaintiff has not established his possession - Plaintiff has established possession in respect suit for bare injunction - Furthermore settlement register indicates names of plaintiff as well as first defendant - This fact indicates that originally properties are family properties – Therefore merely because two of them relied upon partition deed and boundaries that itself is not determining factor to prove title - First Appellate Court has analyzed these facts and thoroughly considered entire documents and recorded finding as to possession which needs no interference at hands of this Court - Accordingly all substantial questions of law are answered against appellant – Appeals dismissed
JUDGMENT :
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the decree and judgment made in A.S.No.24 of 2004, dated 29.03.2006 on the file of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, reversing the decree and judgment made in O.S.No.2285 of 1989, dated 22.10.2003 on the file of the Third Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli, by allowing this second appeal and thereby, decreeing the suit in toto with costs throughout and thus render justice.
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the decree and judgment made in A.S.No.52 of 2004, dated 29.03.2006 on the file of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, reversing the decree and judgment made in O.S.No.2830 of 1996, dated 22.10.2003 on the file of the Third Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli, by allowing this second appeal and thereby, decreeing the suit in toto with costs throughout and thus render justice.
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the decree and judgment made in A.S.No.93 of 2004, dated 29.03.2006 on the file of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, reversing the decree and judgment made in O.S.No.2285 of 1989, dated 22.10.2003 on the file of the Third Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli, by allowing this second appeal and thereby, decreeing the suit in toto with costs throughout and thus render justice.
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the decree and judgment made in A.S.No.91 of 2004, dated 29.03.2006 on the file of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, confirming the decree and judgment made in O.S.No.2830 of 1996, dated 22.10.2003 on the file of the Third Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli, by allowing this second appeal and thereby, decreeing the suit in toto with costs throughout and thus render justice.
The Second Appeals are filed as against the concurrent as well as the reversed finding of the first Appellate Court in a common judgment in respect of two suits filed by the respective plaintiff in O.S.Nos.2285 of 1989 and 2830 of 1996.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The suit in O.S.No.2285 of 1989 was filed by the plaintiff contending that the portion shown as ‘ABCD’ in the plaint plan is the joint family property of the plaintiff and the members of his family. In a registered partition deed dated 10.09.1980, ‘A’ schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff, namely 41/2 cents. He is in continuous possession of the property. ‘B’ schedule property is immediately adjoining the ‘A’ schedule property. There are standing coconut trees in the ‘B’ schedule property. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is his contention that the defendants 1 and 2 are brothers and the defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of the second defendant. The first defendant is the owner of the property situate immediately west of the suit property. In fact, in the document of title of the first defendant, the plaintiff's ‘A’ schedule property is shown as the eastern boundary, dividing the ‘A’ schedule property belonging to the plaintiff and the property of the first defendant, there is a regular north to south fence. Thus, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. The defendants made an attempt to trespass into the suit property. Hence, the suit for injunction.
4. The first defendant filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff, on imaginary rights, tried to create a right over the suit property. The plaintiff has not disclosed the measurement and extent in respect of ‘A’ schedule property. The first defendant owns an extent of 6.3/4 in S.F.No.58/4 out of the total 9
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
