Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. BALAJI, J.
P. Rajagopal – Appellant
Versus
P. Srinivasan and Others – Respondents
S.A. No. 723 of 2017, C.M.P. No. 18870 of 2018
Decided On : 08-03-2024
Injunction - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure - Section 100 - 25, 11, 17, 21, 24 - The court discussed the validity of a suit for bare injunction without a prayer for declaration, the burden of proof in establishing oral partition, and the necessity of documentary evidence to support claims of possession and partition. The court also considered the implications of admission and silence on the part of the defendant in determining joint possession and entitlement to relief.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that the defendant was disturbing his possession of the suit property, alleging an oral partition and possession since 1980. The trial court decreed the suit, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The defendant appealed, questioning the maintainability of the suit for bare injunction without a prayer for declaration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the oral partition and possession of the suit property, and the suit for bare injunction was not maintainable without a prayer for declaration. The Second Appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
Issues: Validity of suit for bare injunction without a prayer for declaration, burden of proof in establishing oral partition, sufficiency of documentary evidence to support claims of possession and partition.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff must establish the oral partition and its execution, burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to show the oral partition was acted upon, documentary evidence is necessary to support claims of possession and partition, and a suit for bare injunction without a prayer for declaration is not maintainable when the defendant denies the exclusive ownership of the property.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed, and all substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the appellant. The suit for permanent injunction without a prayer for declaration was held to be not maintainable.
JUDGMENT :
P.B. BALAJI, J.
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2014 in A.S. No. 143 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Salem confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2007 in O.S. No. 70 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.
1. The defendant in a suit for injunction, seeking to restrain him from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, is the appellant herein.
2. The parties are described as per their litigative status before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts that are necessary for adjudicating the above Second Appeal are as follows:
3.1. The plaintiff instituted the suit for permanent injunction claiming that the suit property was originally belonging to the father of the plaintiff and the defendant, one Pachiyapillai. According to the plaintiff, the said Pachiyapillai executed a registered Will dated 25.10.1961, bequeathing the suit property amongst other properties to the plaintiff and defendant in common. He has also stated that certain other properties were given to the sisters of the plaintiff and defendant. Even during the lifetime of his father, Pachiyapillai, one brother of the plaintiff and defendant by name, Natarajan was not provided any property under the Will and therefore, the plaintiff and the defendant chose to execute the settlement deed, gifting one property to the said brother Natarajan, absolutely.
3.2. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the defendant orally divided the properties prior to 1980 and under the said oral partition, the suit properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff' and thereafter, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. However, in 2005, the defendant with a view to knock off the suit property started to disturb the plaintiff's possession and also threatened him with demolition of the old dilapidated building. With these allegations, the suit for permanent injunction was filed.
4. The defendant filed a written statement, admitting the Will of the father, but denying the oral partition concerning the suit properties. In fact, it is the specific case of the defendant that there was an oral partition, under which the properties facing Devendrapuram Main Road alone was orally partitioned and the suit properties continued to be in the joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant claimed to be in possession and also collecting rents from the tenant who is occupying the portion of the property. The defendant denied the allegations of threat and disturbance allegedly caused to the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. The trial Court decreed the suit, finding that the defendant was not in possession and the oral partition pleaded by the plaintiff appeared to be true and allowed the suit as prayed by the plaintiff.
6. Pending the First Appeal by the defendant, the First Appellate Court permitted the defendant to file an additional written statement on the ground that the suit for bare injunction without a prayer for declaration was not maintainable. However, the Court found that the oral partition was proved and the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the suit for injunction, without a prayer for declaration and consequently, also confirmed the findings of the Trial Court.
7. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below, the defendant is on Second Appeal.
8. At the time of admitting the above Second Appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed on 18.10.2023:
“Whether the suit for bare injunction without the prayer for declaration is maintainable, especially when the defendant denies the exclusive title of the plaintiff?”
9. Subsequently, on 31.01.2024, after hearing the learned counsel on both sides namely, Mr. P. Jagadeesan and Mr. Mukund, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. T.S. Vijayaraghavan, leaned counsel for the
AI
In a property injunction suit, a plaintiff must demonstrate current possession, irrespective of competing title claims, to obtain relief.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that in the absence of proof of oral partition, co-sharers have a right in every inch of ancestral property, and exclusive possession cannot be ....
The main legal point established is that the plaintiff's possession was proved through various documents, and the first defendant had no standing to dispute the partition.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove oral partition in property disputes and the implications of relying on the defendant's statement. The burden of proof l....
Oral partition admission binds; courts mould relief granting lesser entitlement via admitted sale deed.
Clear evidence is required to establish claims of property ownership and partition, particularly in disputes among co-owners.
The burden of proof regarding oral partition rests on the party asserting it, with mere pleading insufficient for presumption.
In the absence of established oral partition, co-owners have equal shares in the property, as per Section 47 of the Transfer of Property Act.
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
