The distinction between judgment in rem and judgment in personam, and the binding nature of judgment in rem on anyone claiming interest in the property.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2008 in A.S. No.55 of 2007 on the file of the III-rd Additional District Judge, Puducherry, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 28.11.2007 in O.S.No.20 0f 2006 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Puducherry).

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2008 passed in A.S. No.55 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Puducherry, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 28.11.2007 passed in O.S.No.20 0f 2006 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Puducherry.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.

3. The plaintiff in OS.No.20 of 2006 is the appellant in the Second Appeal.

4. Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.

5. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the suit property belonged to Seshachalam and his brother Lakshmanasamy and after their demise, the suit property was enjoyed by one Mohanambal, who was the daughter of Seshachalam and she is the sole legal heir and Mohanambal sold the suit property to one Halil Basha on 30.06.1983 and Halil Basha sold the same to the plaintiff on 13.09.1984 and since then it is only the plaintiff who has been enjoying the suit property. Taking advantage of the plaintiff's absence from India and his wife also residing at Madras, the defendant, who is the Superintendent of Police, had attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property by putting up the construction on the same and a police complaint had also been lodged against him with reference to the same and the Lloyds Colony Welfare Association formed with reference to the suit property and the other adjacent plots has also only communicated to the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for the development charges and the plaintiff also issued a legal notice dated 28.01.2006 calling upon the defendant to refrain from interfering with his possession and enjoyment and to remove the unlawful construction put up by him in the suit property and as the defendant had failed to comply with the same, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for the relief of permanent injunction.

6. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and admitted that the suit property originally belonged to Seshachalam and Lakshmanasamy and thereafter, Mohanambal was enjoying the same and further admitted that Mohanambal sold some of the properties to Halil Basha by way of the sale deed dated 30.06.1983 and would further contend that the suit property was not part of the abovesaid sale deed and therefore, denied that Halil Basha had any valid title over the suit property based on the sale deed dated 30.06.1983 and further denied that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from Halil Basha by way of the sale deed dated 13.09.1984 and enjoying the same and according to the defendant, the sale deed dated 13.09.1984 is a sham and nominal deed and intended only to illegally appropriate the suit property. The plaintiff has never been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property and that he raised the superstructure thereon is totally false and further denied that the suit property forms part of the Lloyds colony and according to the defendant, in the appeal in A.S.No.158/86 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Puducherry against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.832/84 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Pondicherry, dated 30.09.1991, the appellate court was pleased to held that the sale deed dated 30.06.1983 in favour of Halil Basha is not valid and liable to be ignored and the said judgment of the appellate court was confirmed by the High Court Madras in S.A. No.755/93 by judgment dated 05.11.1993 and the counsel app