Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Mad) 719

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Sundrambal and Others – Appellants
Versus
Paneerselvam and Others – Respondents
S.A. Nos. 976, 977 of 2013, M.P. No. 1 of 2013
Decided On : 14-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : C. Anbu, M.R. Thangavel.
For the Respondents: Ruban Chakravarthy, S. Kaithamalai Kumaran.

IMPORTANT POINT
Possession follows title, and where the main relief of declaration is denied, the Court cannot grant the consequential relief of injunction.

Headnote:
Possessory Title - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure - Section 100 - O.S. No. 356 of 2004, O.S. No. 400 of 2004 - S. No. 271/3, S. No. 271/4 - Ex.B.1, Ex.B.2 - A.S. No. 68 of 2011, A.S. No. 69 of 2011
Fact of the Case:
Two Second Appeals were filed against the Judgment and Decree in two suits for declaration of possessory title and injunction. The plaintiffs claimed possession of 'Agazhi Poramboke' land, while the defendants asserted ownership of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court denied possessory title but granted injunction. The Principal Subordinate Judge confirmed the findings but held that where the main relief is denied, the consequential relief of injunction cannot be granted. The Second Appeals were filed against this decision.
Issues: Validity of disputed Will, necessity of government as a party, existence of tenancy, rejection of injunction, possession of the appellants, acceptance of evidence without records
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the disputed property was a patta land and possession follows title. It also held that where the main relief of declaration is denied, the Court cannot grant the consequential relief of injunction.
Final Decision: The Second Appeals were dismissed, and the Judgment and Decree of the lower courts were confirmed.

JUDGMENT :

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

Prayer in S.A. No. 976 of 2013: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree in A.S. No. 68 of 2011 dated 28.03.2013 on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 400 of 2004 dated 31.10.2011 on the file of the Court of Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam. In S.A. No. 977 of 2013 Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree in A.S. No. 69 of 2011 dated 28.03.2013 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 356 of 2004 dated 31.10.2011 on the file of the Court of Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam.

1. These two Second Appeals arise out of two suits filed for declaration of possessory title and consequential relief of injunction. O.S. No. 356 of 2004 was filed by one R. Mani and Vijayalakshmi against one Paneerselvam. Similarly, O.S. No. 400 of 2004 was filed by the following persons, Sundarambal, Thillai Karasi, Pachayappan and Shiek Mehaboob Basha against Paneerselvam and Jambulingam.

2. The case of the plaintiffs in both the suits is that the properties in which they are in occupation are classified as ‘Agazhi Poramboke’. They would state that they are paying ‘B’ memo to the Government. Since the defendants, who are residents of an adjacent property, are trying to interfere with their possession they come forward with the above suits for declaration of possessory title and consequential relief of injunction.

3. The defendants on service of summons entered appearance and stated that the suit schedule mentioned property has been wrongly mentioned as 271/3, which is ‘Agazhi Poramboke’ but the suit property actually situated in 271/4C which is a patta land. They would state that the property originally belongs to one Muthu Krishna Mudaliar, who purchased the property on 04.02.1925. On his death, the properties were came to the hands of his legal heirs, who are the defendants. They state that the plaintiffs are none other than the persons who have purchased the properties by way of un-registered sale deeds from the tenants of Muthu Krishna Mudaliar and his successors in interest and therefore cannot claim any relief against the defendants.

4. Before the Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed:

“1. Whether the suit property is “Agazhi Poramboke” land?

2. Whether the plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit property for more than 30 years by paying penal tax to the Government?

3. Whether the plaint ABCD property is the only way for the plaintiffs to reach the road?

4. Whether the property in S. No. 271/4 with an extent of 57 cents, originally belonged to Muthu Krishna Mudaliar by virtue of Sale deed dated 04.02.1925?

5. Whether the suit property was allotted to Jambulinga Mudaliar S/o Munusamy Mudaliar in the partition dated 04.08.1981?

6. Whether the father of the 1st plaintiff has executed a rental agreement dated 22.09.1964 for the vacant site in favour of defendant?

7. Whether the Court fee paid is proper?

8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration and permanent injunction?

9. To what other relief, the plaintiffs are entitled?”

5. On the side of the plaintiffs, PWs. 1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P.1 to 126 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DWs. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to 20 were marked.

6. The learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the suit schedule mentioned property is situated in Survey No. 271/4 and not in 271/3. He also held that it is 271/3 which is a ‘Agazhi poramboke’ land, whereas the S. No. 271/4 is a patta land, belonging to the defendants. Taking into consideration the long possession of the plaintiffs, the Trial Court while denying the relief of declaration of possessory title, granted them the relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering their posses

Click Here to Read the rest of this document