Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.MURALI SHANKAR
Kannappan – Appellant
Versus
Marimuthu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Murali Shankar, J.
The Second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 14.11.2022 in A.S.No.20 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Sivagangai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 10.01.2019 made in O.S.No.226 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai.
2. The appellants are the plaintiffs. They have filed a suit in O.S.No.226 of 2016, before the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter referred as per ranking/status before the trial Court.
4.The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is as follows:
a) The suit property was purchased by one Aru. Gana. Kannappa Chettiar, the father of plaintiffs 1 to 3, from Palaniyandi Servai and his brother Soman Servai, sons of Subbiah Servai, under a registered sale deed dated 29.09.1944. From the date of purchase, the said Kannappa Chettiar had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He had been leasing out the property for putting up temporary shops
A second appeal under Section 100 CPC is restricted to substantial questions of law; the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or allow amendments that fundamentally alter the nature of a suit or ....
The court maintained that prior judgments and actual possession govern ownership claims in property disputes, reaffirming the principle of res judicata in civil matters.
A suit for permanent injunction requires proof of possession; if title is disputed, a declaratory suit is necessary, and failure to include necessary parties renders the suit untenable.
The plaintiff has to prove his case on his own strength, and in this case, the appellant failed to establish his possession of the suit property, leading to the dismissal of the second appeal.
In a suit for permanent injunction, if the plaintiff's possession is established and title is not disputed, an action seeking only an injunction can proceed without requiring a declaration of title.
The court clarified the application of res judicata in property disputes and upheld the plaintiff's right to seek a mandatory injunction to remove encroachments without claiming possession.
Revenue records do not confer title or prove possession against commissioner report and admissions showing physical division by road and fencing; injunction suit maintainable on possession without de....
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
