Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
Vel. Jayakumar and Another – Appellants
Versus
K. Sonaimuthu and Others – Respondents
S.A. Nos. 321, 324, 328 of 2020, C.M.P. Nos. 6527, 6554, 6660 of 2020
Decided On : 22-05-2020
Limitation Act - Article 58 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Section 8 - Sale-Deeds - Possession of suit properties - Decree made in and on file of Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge confirming judgment and decree made on file of Court of District – Held, Second Appeal filed Section of Civil Procedure Code against Judgment and Decree made and on file of Court of Principal Subordinate Judge confirming judgment and decree made on file of Court of District – Held, Courts below have concurrently found that knowledge of decree could be imputed on plaintiffs only from date of filing of written statement if that date is taken as date of accrual of cause of action for plaintiffs to sue for declaration that decree is a nullity then suit filed by them is well within time - Do not see any perversity in said finding of Courts below in order to enable me to interfere with same even if another view is possible - Findings being concurrent findings cannot be disturbed by second Appellate Court unless they are shown to be perverse - Despite their best efforts counsels for appellants are unable to point out any perversity in findings regarding question of Limitation - As regards grant of relief of injunction both counsels would contend that since plaintiff has taken possession through Court and she had handed over possession to purchaser who in turn had sold to appellant Courts below were not right in concluding that plaintiffs have established their possession on date of suit - Here again Courts below have concurrently found that plaintiffs have proved that they have been in possession of suit properties - Documentary evidence in form of lay out plans and sale-deeds have been produced to show that plaintiffs were in possession of property on date of suit - Transfer of issued in name of Plaintiffs has also been taken into account by Courts – petition closed
JUDGMENT :
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
Prayer in S.A. No. 321 of 2020: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.2019 made in A.S. No. 43 of 2011 and on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2011 made in O.S. No. 816 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tiruppur.
In S.A. Nos. 324 of 2020: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.2019 made in A.S. No. 27 of 2011 and on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2011 made in O.S. No. 401 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tiruppur.
In S.A. Nos. 328 of 2020: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.2019 made in A.S. No. 28 of 2011 and on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2011 made in O.S. No. 401 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tiruppur.
1. The Second Appeal Nos. 321 and 324 of 2020 have been filed by the second defendant in O.S. Nos. 816 of 2004 and 401 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruppur, while Second Appeal No. 328 of 2020 has been filed by the first defendant in O.S. No. 401 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruppur.
2. The suit in O.S. No. 401 of 2006 was laid by the plaintiffs therein seeking a declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 778 of 1990 dated 24.04.2000 is a nullity and therefore, not binding on them. O.S. No. 816 of 2004 (O.S. No. 490 of 2003 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruppur) was filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 401 of 2006 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs of the suit properties.
3. The facts leading to the above suits are as follows:
4. The minor, viz. Nagarathinam, who was represented by her mother Karunaiammal in those sale-deeds attained majority sometime in 1981. Thereafter, the said Nagarathinam filed a suit in O.S. No. 778 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruppur, against the purchasers, viz. Muthusamy Gounder, Karupathal, Arumugam and three other persons, viz. Ammasai Gounder, Murugesan and Palaniammal, who had purchased the remaining 4.18 acres, claiming partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share.
5. During the pendency of the said suit, the purchasers under the Sale-Deeds dated 12.04.1979 sold the property purchased by them on 15.10.1992 to one Kulandaiammal, Gouriammal and Saraswathi. On 29.08.1994, again during the pendency of O.S. No. 778 of 1990, the plaintiffs in the present suits, viz. Sonaimuthu, Ramasubbu, Karthikeyan, Chandrasekaran and Rangasamy, purchased the suit properties from Gouriammal, Kulandaiammal and Saraswathi.
6. A preliminary decree came to be passed on 24.04.2000 declaring the plaintiffs' 1/3rd share in the suit property, upon the defendants therein remaining ex-parte. The said Nagarathinam
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
