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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1544

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For the Appellant : Mr.V.Shathurthi Raja, for Mr.S.Kadarkarai.
For the Respondent: Mr.M.Ashok Kumar

IMPORTANT POINT
A co-owner cannot seek an injunction against another co-owner regarding property possession.

Headnote:

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

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