BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
Kaliammal - Appellant
Versus
Thangaraj – Respondent
S.A. (MD) No.879 of 2008
Decided on : 05-07-2024
Injunction - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure Section 100 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding co-ownership and the maintainability of injunction suits among co-owners, concluding that a suit for injunction against a co-owner is not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed for an injunction against the defendants, claiming possession of property inherited from his grandfather. The defendants contended they were co-owners, having inherited from the same ancestor, and sought dismissal of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's claim of possession was valid but ruled that an injunction against a co-owner is not maintainable, as both parties are entitled to share in the property.
Issues: Whether the courts below were justified in granting a decree for injunction against a co-owner of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: A suit for injunction against a co-owner is not maintainable, as possession by one co-owner benefits all co-owners.
Result: The Second Appeal is allowed, and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 24.01.2008, passed in A.S.No.27 of 2006 on the file of Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 19.01.2006, passed in O.S.No.133 of 2002 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputhur.
The first defendant in the suit is the appellant. The first respondent herein filed a suit for bare injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the first appeal filed by the first defendant was dismissed. Challenging the concurrent findings, the first defendant is before this Court.
2. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to his paternal grandfather – Pethaiyar Thevar and he died in the year 1991. The only son of Pethaiyar Thevar, namely, Nataraj Thevar, father of the plaintiff, pre-deceased his father. Therefore, after the death of Pethaiyar Thevar, the plaintiff succeeded to his property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying house tax to the Government. The defendants, without having any manner of right over the suit property, attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession over the suit property and hence he was constrained to file a suit for bare injunction.
3. The first defendant filed her written statement and the same was adopted by the defendants 3, 4 and 5. It was the case of the defendants that the plaintiff's grandfather - Pethaiyar Thevar had one son and two daughters and the first defendant was one of the daughters of Pethaiyar Thevar. The plaintiff's father was none other than the brother of the first defendant. It was also claimed that the suit property was purchased by the mother of the first defendant and wife of Pethaiyar Thevar, namely, Natchiarammal under a sale deed, dated 23.12.1959. The suit property, after purchase, had been in possession and enjoyment of the family, including the first defendant and the plaintiff's father. The original owner – Natchiarammal mortgaged the suit property with one Lakshmiammal for a sum of Rs.400/- and the same was redeemed by the first defendant by spending her own funds. It was also claimed that the father of the plaintiff died at a young age, leaving minor plaintiff and he was brought up by the first defendant only. It was further claimed by the defendant that Natchiarammal executed a settlement deed, dated 22.04.1993, settling certain properties in favour of the first defendant. The suit property was orally gifted in favour of the first defendant and as such the first defendant had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. On these pleadings, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and one of his paternal aunts, namely, the sister of first defendant was examined as P.W.2. On the side of the plaintiff, 4 documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-4. The first defendant was examined as D.W.1 and yet another witness was examined as D.W.2. 6 documents were marked on the side of the defendants as Exs.B-1 to B-6.
5. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff established his possession over the suit property and consequently granted a decree for permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the first defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.27 of 2006 on the file of Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur. The first appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the first defendant is before this Court.
6. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial question of law, by an order, dated 10.06.2024 :
Whether the Courts below are justified in granting a decree for injunction against the first defendant, who is entitled to be treated as a co-owner of the property, after the death of original owner Natchiarammal ?
7. The learned c
A co-owner cannot seek an injunction against another co-owner regarding property possession.
A suit for permanent injunction does not require dismissal if there is no real cloud to the title of the plaintiff, warranting a declaration. There is no absolute bar under the Specific Relief Act to....
The main legal point established is that the plaintiff must prove the validity of the Will in accordance with the Evidence Act and that no injunction can be granted against co-owners.
In a suit for injunction, the plaintiff must establish prima facie title or possession; failure to do so results in dismissal of the suit.
There is no absolute bar under Specific Relief Act to file suit for bare injunction even when title is in dispute.
The main legal point established is the requirement to establish possession, enjoyment, and title in a suit for permanent injunction, and the dismissal of claims without substantiating evidence.
Co-ownership implies that possession by one co-owner is possession for all, and oral relinquishment must be proven to be valid.
The court established that a Will's validity is not negated by the exclusion of heirs, provided its execution is proven and no undue influence is demonstrated.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.