IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
T. Subramani & Others - Appellant
Versus
K. Jayapaul & Others - Respondent
A.S. Nos. 629 & 630 of 2018 & C.M.P. Nos. 27812, 27801 & 27805 of 2019
Decided On : 11-04-2022
CPC - Property Dispute - 10, 96 - The court discussed the ownership of the property, the possession of the parties, and the documents presented to establish their claims. The court upheld the judgment and decree of the lower court, granting relief based on the possession of the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two suits filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration of ownership and possession of a property measuring 2422 sq.ft. and permanent injunction against the defendants. The defendants also filed a suit seeking permanent injunction for the same property measuring 2279 sq.ft.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that both parties were in possession of separate portions of the property and granted relief based on their respective possession. The plaintiffs were granted declaration of title and permanent injunction for 679 sq.ft., while the defendants were granted permanent injunction for 1600 sq.ft.
Issues: The main issues included the ownership and possession of the property, entitlement to damages, and the grant of permanent injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the possession of the parties and the documents presented to establish their claims. It followed the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs or Ors to grant relief based on possession.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the lower court were upheld without costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 41 Rules 1 & 2 CPC and Section 96 of CPC, against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.07.2017 passed in O.S.No. 12564 of 2010 (C.S.No. 349 of 2000) on the file of the XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, declaring that the plaintiffs/appellants are the absolute owners of the property for 679 sq.ft., instead of suit property measuring 1 ground and 22 sq.ft., refusing to direct the defendants to vacate and surrender vacant possession of 1600 sq.ft., trespassed by the defendants/respondents and to pay damages to the plaintiff.
Appeal filed under Order 41 Rules 1 & 2 CPC and Section 96 of CPC, against the part of the Judgment and Decree dated 28.07.2017 passed in O.S.No. 12862 of 2010 (C.S.No. 876 of 2004) O.S.No. 4829/1995 on the file of the XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, holding that the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled for permanent injunction with respect to 1600 sq.ft.,)
Common Order
1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No. 12564 of 2010 on the file of the XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, which suit had been originally filed as C.S.No. 349 of 2000 before the Original Side of the Madras High Court are the appellants in A.S.No. 629 of 2018.
2. They are the defendants in O.S.No. 12862 of 2010 also on the file of the XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, and owing to the suit being decreed, they had filed A.S.No. 630 of 2018.
3. The respondents in both the appeal suits, are the defendants in O.S.No. 12564 of 2010 and the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 12862 of 2010.
4. Joint trial was conducted by the XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, in both O.S.No. 12564 of 2010 and O.S.No. 12862 of 2010. By a common Judgment and Decree dated 28.07.2017, O.S.No. 12564 of 2010 was partly decreed and O.S.No. 12862 of 2010 was decreed.
5. O.S.No. 12564 of 2010 / C.S.No. 349 of 2000 had been filed by the plaintiffs therein / appellants in A.S.No. 629 of 2018, seeking a Judgment and Decree, declaring that they are the absolute owners of ‘A’ schedule property given in the plaint and for a declaration that the defendants are tresspassers of ‘B’ schedule property in the plaint and for a direction against the defendants to handover vacant possession of the ‘B’ schedule property and for damages at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month for unauthorised occupation of ‘B’ schedule property and for costs.
6. The ‘A’ schedule property in the plaint was land and building measuring 1 ground and 22 sq.ft., namely, 2422 sq.ft., at Door No. 56, Ellaiamman Koil Street, previous Door No. 15 /2 Gandhi Street, Chennai –600 033 and the ‘B’ schedule property was a part of ‘A’ schedule property measuring 1600 sq.ft., in Old Door No. 34, Gandhi Street, Chennai –600 033.
7. O.S.No. 12862 of 2010 had been filed by the respondents in both the appeals, seeking a Judgment and Decree for permanent injunction from interfering with their peaceful possession of property at Gandhi Street, Door No. 34, Chennai –600 033 measuring 53’ x 43’ or 2279 sq.ft.
8. The learned Trial Judge by a common Judgment had partly decreed O.S.No. 12564 of 2010 granting declaration of title to 679 sq.ft., alone and had dismissed the suit with respect to the declaration that the defendants are to be declared as tresspassers with respect to ‘B’ schedule property and therefore to handover vacant possession.
9. With respect to O.S.No. 12862 of 2010, the learned Trial Judge had decreed the suit for permanent injunction with respect to 1600 sq.ft.
10. Questioning the Judgment and Decree in both the suits, the Appeals have been filed. No appeal has been filed by the defendants in O.S.No. 12564 of 2010.
O.S.No. 12564 of 2010:
11. The plaintiffs claimed that the father of the first plaintiff M.Thambiran Naicker was holding land measuring 1 ground and 22 sq.ft., in Door No. 15/2, Gandhi Street, West Mambalam Village, Chennai -33, as owner from 1948 till his death on 14.03.1968. The plaintiffs are his legal representatives. There were settlement proceedings before
The main legal point established in the judgment is that relief in property disputes can be granted based on the possession of the parties, and the court may follow the guidelines laid down by the Ho....
The court maintained that prior judgments and actual possession govern ownership claims in property disputes, reaffirming the principle of res judicata in civil matters.
In injunction suits, establishing possession suffices; title issues arise when challenged by defendants claiming rights, thus not necessitating formal title proof by plaintiffs.
Proper identification of properties based on respective title deeds supported by old survey plan and new survey plan is necessary to grant reliefs sought in a suit for injunction and counter claim fo....
A suit for permanent injunction requires proof of possession; if title is disputed, a declaratory suit is necessary, and failure to include necessary parties renders the suit untenable.
Revenue records do not confer title or prove possession against commissioner report and admissions showing physical division by road and fencing; injunction suit maintainable on possession without de....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.