1. Suit for bare injunction regarding disputed land title and possession based on competing sale deeds. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 15201
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
T.V. Thamilselvi, J
Batcha – Appellant
Versus
Haja Maideen – Respondent
S.A.No.510 of 2013
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Thiruvengadaswamy
For the Respondents: No Appearance
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Thiruvengadaswamy
For the Respondents: No Appearance
A suit for bare injunction is maintainable without a separate declaration of title if the plaintiff proves title and possession through registered deeds and revenue records, particularly when the defendant's title claims are contradictory or lack supporting parent documents.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Suit for bare injunction - Maintainability - Where the plaintiff has established title and possession through registered sale deeds and corroborating revenue records, a separate suit for declaration of title is not necessary even if the title is disputed by the defendant, especially when the defendant's claim is not supported by evidence. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff purchased 19 cents of land in S.F No. 174/3 from one Balakrishnan Udayar in 1986 and obtained patta and paid kist. The defendant claimed his father had purchased the same property earlier in 1982 from one Ramadoss Mudaliar and asserted possession by building a house. The trial court and the lower appellate court both decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, which was challenged in this second appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the defendant failed to prove the source of title for his vendor and that the boundaries and land descriptions in the defendant's documents (Ex.B2 and Ex.B3) were contradictory to the actual nature of the suit property (Punjai land). Conversely, the plaintiff established a clear chain of title from 1959 through Ex.A1 and Ex.A6, supported by revenue records and the testimony of the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.2), who confirmed the land was vacant dry land.
Issues: Whether a suit for bare injunction is maintainable when the title is disputed and whether the defendant established possession and title over the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that when a plaintiff proves title and possession via registered documents and revenue records, and the defendant's claims are contradictory and unsupported by parent documents, the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction without needing a formal declaration of title.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff claimed title and possession via purchase; defendant asserted prior title and possession through earlier purchase. (Para 3 , 4 , 9 , 10 )
3. Defendant failed to prove title as boundaries in deed did not match property; plaintiff proved title and possession through revenue records. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. A plaintiff need not seek declaration when title is proved through documentary and revenue evidence in an injunction suit. (Para 12 )
5. Second appeal dismissed; suit for injunction decreed in favor of plaintiff with no costs. (Para 14 )
6. Is a suit for bare injunction maintainable when title is disputed?
Yes, where the plaintiff proves title through documentary and revenue evidence, a suit for bare injunction is maintainable without seeking a declaration. (Para 12 )
7. What is the evidentiary value of revenue records in a title dispute?
Revenue records such as patta and adangal are relevant to prove possession and title when supported by a valid sale deed. (Para 12 , 14 )
8. How is conflicting documentary evidence regarding property boundaries resolved?
If the boundaries in a party's deed are contradictory to their own evidence or do not match the suit property, the deed is not reliable. (Para 11 )
PRAYER: This Second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and decree made in A.S No.44 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi dated 31.07.2012 confirming the Judgment and Decree made in O.S No.159 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mannargudi dated 18.09.2010.
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and decree made in A.S No.44 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi dated 31.07.2012 confirming the Judgment and Decree made in O.S No.159 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mannargudi dated 18.09.2010.
2.For the sake of convenience the parties are ranked as per the original suit.
3. The case of the plaintiff are as follows:
The plaintiff purchased the suit property/S.F No.174/3 to an extent 19 cents from one Balakrishnan Udayar, on 22.09.1986, vide document 994/1986. Consequently, the plaintiff transferred the patta in his name and also paid kist to the Government. The suit property was obtained by the said BalaKrishnan Udayar through settle deed dated 07.12.1959 vide Document No.1251/1959 as A Schedule property from his father Ayathurai Udayar. Thereafter, the plaintiff enjoyed the suit property. While being so, on 03.10.2009, the defendant asked the plaintiff to sell away the property and also threatened him for that the plaintiff refused. Thereafter, on 18.10.2009, the defendant tried to encroach the suit property which was prevented by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit.
4. The case of defendant are as follows:
The defendant denied the allegation in the suit and stated that on 29.10.1982, the father of defendant Abdul Salam Ravuthar purchased the above said suit property/S.F No.174/3 to an extent of land 0.17 1/3 cents from one Ramadoss Mudaliar, who got that property through exchange deed. Thereafter, the said Abdul Salam Ravuthar died in the year 1991, the defendant and his mother and brother enjoyed the suit property. Then, the defendant's mother died in the year 2008. Thereafter, the defendant along with this brother built thatched house with fence and the door No. 3/488-A was assigned and enjoyed the property till date. Further, the defendant stated that the sale deed alleged said to be obtained by the plaintiff in the year 1986 but the defendant's father purchased the suit property much earlier in the year 1982 hence the alleged sale deed 1986 would not binding on the defendant. Further, in year 2005, the defendant filed a caveat petition for which the plaintiff did not answer. Hence, the suit is liable to be set aside.
5. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiffs, three witness were examined and 6 documents Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.6 were marked. On the side of the defendant, 2 witness were examined and 3 documents Ex.B.1 to Ex.B3 were marked.
6. On considering both the submissions the trial Court framed six issues and concluded that the plaintiff having right over the suit property by way of purchase thereby the decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
7. Aggrieved by the suit the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S No. 44 of 2011, wherein, the lower Appellate Court independently analysed the facts and evidence and concluded that the plaintiff's possessed and enjoyed the suit property and it belonged to the plaintiff's processor in title thereby confirms the Judgment of the trial Court by dismissing the appeal.
8. Challenging the above Judgments the defendant preferred this appeal by contending that both the Court below erroneously appreciated the evidence and documents and also without considering the sale deed/Ex.B2 granted the relief in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, he prayed to admit the appeal with the following questions of law:
(a) Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Courts below are sustainable when the appellant has established and proved the factum of possession of the suit property by producing EX.B2 and EX.3?
(b) Whether Courts below are right in
