Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mrs Justice N. MALA
K.N.BELLIE (DIED) – Appellant
Versus
KAMALA ARJUNAN – Respondent
Property - Land Disputes - CPC - Sections 100 - The court analyzed whether the lower appellate court correctly reversed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit for injunction. It emphasized the necessity of properly identifying and demarcating property boundaries to establish legal possession, ultimately siding with the defendant.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant owned 3.69 acres of land and sold 1.50 acres to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed to have developed part of this land but faced interference from the defendant, prompting her to seek a permanent injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, stating the burden to prove exclusive title was on her, which she failed to do. The appellate court later reversed this decision, citing established property boundaries. However, the higher court found that the identification and boundaries were not adequately determined.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the lower appellate court correctly overturned the trial court's dismissal and whether the plaintiff had established the boundaries to warrant an injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: An injunction cannot be granted unless the plaintiff can clearly identify and demarcate her property through concrete evidence, not just by transactional documents.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, confirming the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.
JUDGMENT
The Second Appeal is filed against the reversing judgment of the lower appellate court. The defendant in the suit is the appellant in the Second Appeal.
2. The parties will be referred to as per their rank in the trial court.
3. The facts in brief as follows:
The defendant was the absolute owner of total extent of 3.69 acres of agricultural land in R.S.Nos.359/1 and 359/1B, he having obtained the same under the partition deed dated 15.02.1969 and sale deed dated 16.02.1990. The defendant out of the total extent of 3.69 acres obtained by him as aforesaid sold 1.50 acres of agricultural land in R.S.Nos.359/1 & 359/1B (old) and New R.S.No.382 of Ithalar village, with specific boundaries to the plaintiff under sale deed dated 02.12.2005. According to the plaintiff she developed a tea garden in the extent of 50 cents of the land out of 1.50 acres. While so, the defendant attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and therefore on threat of dispossession, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant his men, agent etc. from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.
4. The defendant filed written statement admitting his ownership of the total extent of 3.69 acres of land in R.S.No.359/1 and 359/1B. The defendant also admitted the plaintiff's title to an extent of 1.50 acres in R.S.No.359/1B of Ithalar village by virtue of sale deed executed by him in her favour on 02.02.2005. The defendant denied the plaintiff's averment that she planted tea plants in the suit property. According to the defendant, a part of the plaintiffs suit schedule property, was acquired by the Government for the purpose of laying road to Belithila lease with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff. It was the defendant's further case that some persons on the eastern side of the plaintiff's property encroached into the suit property. The plaintiff in collusion with the said encroachers on the eastern side wanted to enter the defendants land to the extent acquired by the panchayat for laying the road. The defendant stated that taking advantage of the ex-parte interim injunction order granted in her favour, the plaintiff destroyed the tea plants in the defendant's land on 29.03.2010 to 31.03.2010 and therefore the defendant preferred a police complaint against the plaintiff. As regards dispossession of the plaintiff by the defendant was concerned, the defendant stated that the defendant was not there in the village when the alleged dispossession of the plaintiff took place. The defendant therefore submitted that the defendant was in peaceful enjoyment of the balance of 2.19 acres of tea estate and it was the plaintiff who tried to trespass into his lands.
5. Before the trial court the plaintiff examined herself as P.W1 and also examined one other witness as P.W2. The defendant examined himself as D.W1. The plaintiff marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and the defendant did not file any documents. The Commissioners report and sketch were marked as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 as Court documents.
6. The trial court after framing necessary issues dismissed the suit holding that there was a dispute as regards the boundaries of the lands and the plaintiff having instituted the suit, the burden was on the plaintiff to prove her exclusive title and possession over the suit property. The trial Court found that the plaintiff having failed to establish the identity of the suit property, she was not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. The trial court also found that the plaintiff was a Co-Pattadar and therefore she could not claim injunction against the defendant. The trial court therefore dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff filed the appeal before the Sub-Court, Udhagamandalam and the lower appellate court on an appreciation of the entire evidence on record found that the boundaries given in the suit sc
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
