SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 1675

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. HEMALATHA, J.
Mohamed Rafiq – Appellant
Versus
The Panchayat Board Thirukkalacheri Rep. by its President Nagapattinam – Respondent
S.A. No. 578 of 2007 & M.P. No. 1 of 2007
Decided On : 17-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:A. Muthukumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: S. Surya, Additional Government Pleader.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the extent of the plaintiff's possession over the suit property and the entitlement to a permanent injunction based on the evidence presented and the relevant legal provisions.

Headnote:

possession - permanent injunction - Tamil Nadu Act 5 of 1905 - Ex.A3, Ex.A4, Ex.A7 - The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, The Panchayat Board, Thirukkalacheri, from interfering with his possession over the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the first appellate court held that the plaintiff is in possession of only 26 cents of land and remitted the matter back to the trial court for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the exact area in which the plaintiff is in possession.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, The Panchayat Board, Thirukkalacheri, to restrain them from interfering with his possession over the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the first appellate court held that the plaintiff is in possession of only 26 cents of land and remitted the matter back to the trial court for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the exact area in which the plaintiff is in possession.

Finding of the Court:

The first appellate court held that the plaintiff is in possession of only 26 cents of land and remitted the matter back to the trial court for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the exact area in which the plaintiff is in possession.

Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction as prayed for and the extent of land in the plaintiff's possession.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Ex.A3, Ex.A4, and Ex.A7 notices issued in favor of the plaintiff's predecessors to determine the extent of land in the plaintiff's possession. The court also considered the evidence presented by both parties and the lack of documentary evidence to establish the plaintiff's continuous possession of the suit property.

Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and the decree and judgment dated 25.10.2006 passed in A.S. No.78 of 2006, and the decree and judgment dated 28.02.2006 passed in O.S. No.141 of 2004 were set aside. The suit in O.S. No.141 of 2004 was dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer :Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 25.10.2006 passed in A.S. No.78 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, reversing the decree and judgment dated 28.02.2006 passed in O.S. No.141 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkali.)

1.The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No.141 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkali (initially filed before the Principal Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai, and numbered as O.S.No.61/2003 and subsequently transferred to the file of District Munsif Court, Sirkali). He filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, namely, the The Panchayat Board, Thirukkalacheri, represented by its President, from interfering with his possession over the suit property morefully described in the plaint as a land in R.S. No.133, Thoppu Poromboke of Thirukkalacherry Village, Tranquebar Taluk, Mayiladuthurai district, measuring 72 cents within the boundaries stated therein.

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 second appeal would also be indicated.

3.The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff in nutshell are as follows:

1) The suit property was originally in the possession of Thandavaraya Pathar and Arunachala Mudaliar and they were granted 2C patta for enjoying the trees in the property.

2) Subsequently, they conveyed their right over the same in favour of one Fathamuthu Ammal, wife of Mohamed Abubakker Ravuthar under two registered sale deeds dated 13.12.1943 (Ex.A1 and Ex.A2).

3) Fathamuthu Ammal was in enjoyment of the suit property with the trees and after her death, her daughter Mariyamul Azia was in possession of the suit property.

4) Mariyamul Azia also died and her son Mohamed Rafiq (the plaintiff) is in possession of the suit property.

5) During December 2002, the Panchayat Board, Thirukkalacheri (the defendant) measured the suit property with the help of the taluk surveyor on the ground that the house put up by the plaintiff is on a tank belonging to the Panchayat board. However, it was found that the house was not on the tank.

6) There are 7 mango trees and bamboo clusters in the suit property.

7) The plaintiff''s grandmother was issued B memo notice by the Government and in such circumstances the defendant Panchayat Board does not have any right over the suit property.

8) Since the defendant is preventing the plaintiff from enjoying the income from the trees in the suit property and also from constructing a house, he is constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction.

4.The suit was resisted by the defendant on the following grounds :

i. The suit property is a Government land and it was handed over to the Panchayat Board, Thirukkalacheri, during the year 1954.

ii. The defendant has been enjoying the income from the trees and the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

iii. The defendant is also taking steps to construct an overhead tank in the suit property.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

i. "Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property?

ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a permanent injunction as prayed for by him?

iii. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?"

6. In the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself and two other witnesses and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. On the side of the defendant, one witness was examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked. Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were also marked through Mr. S.Sambandam (P.W.3), Village Administrative Officer, Thirukkalacheri Village.

7. After full contest, the learned trial court Judge decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff vide her d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top