Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. HEMALATHA, J.
Varadhan @ S.R. Varadharajan - Appellant
Versus
S. Mariappan - Respondent
S.A. No. 1005 of 2011 & M.P. No. 1 of 2011
Decided On : 01-04-2022
Injunction - Property Dispute - 1908 CPC - Section 100 - 2008 (4) SCC 594 - The court analyzed the possession and title of the plaintiff and defendant over the suit property and held that the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction. The defendant's denial of the plaintiff's title did not raise a cloud over the plaintiff's title, and therefore, a suit for bare injunction was sufficient. The courts below were right in granting the relief of injunction in favor of the plaintiff when the appellant failed to prove his title to the suit property. The absence of a counter claim by the appellant regarding his title precluded the courts from considering the question of title in a suit for injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction against the defendant, claiming title and possession over the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, which was upheld in the first appeal. The defendant filed a second appeal questioning the grant of injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had proved his possession over the suit property, and the defendant's denial of the plaintiff's title did not raise a cloud over the plaintiff's title. The absence of a counter claim by the defendant precluded the courts from considering the question of title in a suit for injunction.
Issues: The issues revolved around the grant of injunction in favor of the plaintiff when the defendant denied the plaintiff's title and the absence of a counter claim by the defendant regarding his title to the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a suit for bare injunction was sufficient when the defendant's denial of the plaintiff's title did not raise a cloud over the plaintiff's title. The absence of a counter claim by the defendant precluded the courts from considering the question of title in a suit for injunction.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, upholding the decrees and judgments of the lower courts in favor of the plaintiff. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 06.09.2005 passed in A.S. No.97 of 2005, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, upholding the decree and judgment dated 01.04.2005 passed in O.S. No.284 of 2003, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.)
1. The appellant is the defendant in O.S. No.284/2003. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No.284/2003 against the appellant/defendant for a permanent injunction restraining the latter from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present appeal would also be indicated.
3. The minimum facts that are required for the disposal of the present second appeal are as follows:
The suit property as described in the plaint is a dry land measuring 0.35 cents situate in old Survey Number 99/1 and new Survey No.99/5 of Seelanaikenpatty Village, Salem, within the boundaries stated therein. The plaintiff Mariappan (P.W.1) claims that he has title over the suit property through a Will dated 16.06.1952 (Ex.A22) executed by Muthusamy Gounder, grand father of the plaintiff, in favour of the mother of the plaintiff Patchiammal @ Chinnaponnu. According to him, the suit property was the self acquired property of Muthusamy Gounder and that after the death of his mother Patchiammal, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is also his contention that the defendant, without any right/title over the suit property, has been attempting to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and one such attempt was made on 10.04.2003, for which a police complaint was lodged by the plaintiff against the defendant. It is also his contention that at the intervention of the police officials, he prevented the defendant from trespassing into the suit property. Hence, the suit.
4. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the suit property originally belonged to one Kolandaiammal, wife of Athi Samban, and subsequently Kulandaiammal and her sons sold the suit property in favour of Ammasi @ Irusagoundar, grand~father of the defendant, through a registered sale deed dated 10.06.1939 (Ex.B4). According to him, the plaintiff obtained patta in his name in respect of the suit property by misrepresenting the facts before the Revenue officials and also got possession of the suit property. The defendant on coming to know of the same, has been demanding the plaintiff to hand over the possession of the suit property to him. However, the plaintiff has filed the present suit with false allegations. According to the defendant the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property is illegal and that he is taking steps to recover the possession from the plaintiff. He, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
5. The trial court, after framing necessary issues and after full contest, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff on the following grounds.
1) The pattas (Ex.A1 and Ex.A17) and other revenue records like chitta, adangal extract, etc., (EX.A4 to Ex.A16 and Ex.A18) clearly prove the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.
2) The defendant in his written statement had clearly admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property.
3) Though the defendant contended that he is the absolute owner of the suit property through Ex.B1 to Ex.B4, he did not prove his title. He did not also file any counter claim.
4) Even assuming that the plaintiff-s possession over the suit property is illegal as alleged by the defendant, the defendant cannot be permitted to take law into his own hands for evicting the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for a permanent injunction.
6. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant filed the first appeal in A.S. No. 97
AI
Injunction sustainable on proved possession without declaration if no title cloud or property identity with prior decree established.
In a suit for permanent injunction, if the plaintiff establishes title, a reasonable presumption of lawful possession can be drawn. The defendant's challenge to the title must be examined to determin....
Suit filed for perpetual injunction by plaintiff, when there is cloud over title is not maintainable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for permanent injunction may not be legally sustainable without seeking the relief of declaration of title, especially when the plainti....
A suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable when a genuine dispute on title arises. The proper remedy is a comprehensive suit for declaration, reaffirming the principle that possession follow....
In a suit for injunction over vacant land, genuine title disputes necessitate a suit for declaration; mere possession does not suffice without establishing title.
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
