Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Kanniyappa Naidu – Appellant
Versus
Krishnaveni – Respondent
S.A.No.679 of 2013
Decided on : 14-03-2024
INJUNCTION - POSSESSION AND TITLE DISPUTE - Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 - The court discussed the legal framework surrounding the validity of oral sales under the Transfer of Property Act and the necessity of proving possession for granting injunctions. It emphasized that a suit for injunction based on possession does not require a declaration of title, and a person in settled possession is entitled to protection against unlawful dispossession. The court confirmed that the plaintiff's possession was established, leading to the decision to grant a permanent injunction against the defendants, subject to lawful processes.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Krishnaveni, claimed ownership of a property based on an oral sale made by her deceased father, Narayana Naidu, in 1968. The defendants, descendants of the original owner, contested this claim, asserting that the property belonged to their grandmother, Gengammal, and that the oral sale was invalid as it occurred after Desappa Naidu's death in 1967. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction after the defendants attempted to dispossess her.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, finding no proof of the oral sale. However, the appellate court recognized the plaintiff's possession prior to the suit and granted an injunction against the defendants. The second appeal was filed to challenge this decision.
Issues: 1) Whether the lower appellate court correctly granted an injunction despite the lack of proof of title. 2) Whether a suit for bare injunction is maintainable when title is disputed. 3) Whether the plaintiff's claim of possession suffices for an injunction without a declaration of title.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a person in settled possession is entitled to seek an injunction against unlawful dispossession, regardless of the title dispute. The court confirmed that the plaintiff had established her possession and that the oral sale claim was invalid. The distinction between suits for injunction based on possession and those based on title was emphasized, allowing the plaintiff to maintain her suit for injunction.
Final Decision: The second appeal was partly allowed, affirming the grant of a permanent injunction to the plaintiff, modified to ensure that the defendants could only interfere with the plaintiff's possession through lawful means.
JUDGMENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Madurantakam, dated 30-10-2012 in A.S.No.8 of 2012 reversing the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court at Madurantakam, dated 28-10-2011 in O.S.No.89 of 2009.
The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge Madurantakam in A.S.No.8 of 2012, dated 30.10.2012 in reversing the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Munsif, Madurantakam in O.S.No.89 of 2009 dated 28.10.2011.
2. The parties will be referred to as per their rank in the suit.
3. The defendants' appeal is before me.
4. O.S.No.89 of 2009 is a suit for permanent injunction based on possession. One Krishnaveni is the plaintiff. It is her case that her father Narayana Naidu purchased the property orally from one Desappa Naidu in the year 1968. Narayana Naidu had taken possession pursuant to the oral sale and was in enjoyment of the property from the year 1968 onwards. During the UDR proceedings, noting that Narayana Naidu was in possession of the property, patta was granted to him. Narayana Naidu died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and one Subbammal as his legal heirs.
5. On 26.08.2002, the plaintiff moved the revenue authorities and mutated the revenue records in her favour. She would claim that she is cultivating the properties for more than 40 years. As the defendant attempted to dispossess the plaintiff, on 18.01.2009, she came forth with the suit for injunction.
6. On service of summons, the defendants 1 and 3 filed detailed written statement. The defendants, I have to add, are sons and daughter of Desappa Naidu. They took a specific stand that the property belong to their paternal Grand mother Gengammal who purchased it from one Ramakrishna Naicker on 16.11.1933. Gengammal was in possession and enjoyment of the property. On her death, the property was succeeded by her daughter-in-law i.e., the mother of the defendants and her sister Subbammal. In recognition of their possession, they had been given a patta in Patta No.148 to an extent of 0.19 cents.
7. They would further state that the allegation of oral sale by Desappa Naidu in favour of the plaintiff's father Narayana Naidu is a false one because Desappa Naidu died in the year 1967 and by no stretch of imagination could he have sold the property one year thereafter in 1968. According to the defendants, Jayalakshmi ammal died on 09.08.2001. They would further plead that Desappa Naidu could not have transferred the property which belongs to Jayalakshmi ammal in favour of Naryana Naidu. It is their specific case that they continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property right from 1933 onwards.
8. An additional written statement was filed by the 1st defendant alone pleading that Govindappa Naidu, the son of Gengammal and the brother of Desappa Naidu, and other sister by name Alamelu also succeeded to the property as Class 1 legal heirs. They would state that Andalammal died in the year 1993 leaving behind her daughters Muniammal, Ragammal and Desammal. Govindappa Naidu died in the year 1963 leaving behind his son Adikesavan and daughters Andalammal, Ellammal. Since the above said 5 persons have not been impleaded, the suit is not maintainable.
9. On these pleadings the learned trial Judge framed the following issues:
“1.Whether the plaintiff has right and possession over the plaint schedule property?
2. Is the plaintiff entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?
3. What are all the other reliefs and cost plaintiff is entitled for ?”
10. On the side of the plaintiff, one Muthukrishnan was examined as P.W1 and one Veerasamy as P.W2. Exs.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked on their side. On the side of the defendants, the 3rd defendant Narayana Naidu examined himself as D.W1 and marked Exs.B1 to Ex.B6.
11. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
AI
(1) Possession is good against all but true owner.(2) Plaintiff who has proved his right over property as well as possession over suit property, he is entitled for decree of injunction.(3) Even tresp....
Injunction sustainable on proved possession without declaration if no title cloud or property identity with prior decree established.
A plaintiff not in possession must seek recovery of possession to maintain a suit for injunction; failure renders the suit non-maintainable.
The law in India accords with the jurisprudential thought as propounded by Salmond, respecting possession even if there is no title to support it. Possession can only be resumed by the true owner in ....
Question of title can be looked into in a suit for injunction unless same is very complicated – A person who is in settled possession cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law.
A suit for permanent injunction requires valid title; without adherence to statutory requirements for land transactions, such claims are unsustainable.
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
