IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.06.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE Second Appeal No.637 of 2021 and C.M.P No.13157 of 2021 Senthamaraikannan ... Appellant ..Vs..

Arulanandham ...Respondent Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2021 passed in A.S No.60 of 2020 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram in reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S No.15 of 2024 dated 04.01.2020 by the Principal District Munsif, Chidambraam.

For Appellant : Mr.A.Muthukumar For Respondent : Mr.T.Saravanan

J U D G M E N T

This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in the suit O.S No.15 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Chidambaram, challenging the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 25.01.2021 passed in A.S No.6 of 2020 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Chidambaram.

2. The suit was filed for bare injunction to restrain the respondent/defendant from interfering with the appellant/plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 04.01.2020 passed in O.S No.15 of 2014 decreed the suit as prayed for by the appellant/plaintiff by granting the relief of permanent injunction. However, the lower Appellate Court under the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.01.2021 passed in A.S No.6 of 2020 reversed the findings of the trial Court and has dismissed the suit.

Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

3. In the forthcoming paragraphs, the parties are described as per the litigative status in the suit.

4. The plaintiff has pleaded that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. He has also disclosed in the plaint as to how he has derived title over the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the defendant is interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and only under those circumstances, he was constrained to file a suit in O.S No.15 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Chidambaram.

5. The suit schedule property is in ChidambaramTaluk, Sivapuri Village comprised in Old R.S No.196/1, New R.S.No.293/9 - 0.0470 sq.mtr (5057 sq.ft.). The boundaries of the said property had also been described in the plaint.

6. On the other hand, the defendant has denied the contentions of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint and has also contended that the plaintiff's vendor had no right to convey the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the plaintiff did not derive title to the suit schedule property through a sale deed dated 13.11.2009 and that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property comprised in R.S No.293/9 measuring 5057 sq.ft. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands.

7. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for in the suit?

b) Whether the R.S No.293/9 is in possession of the defendant?

c) Whether the Court is having the jurisdiction to try the suit?

d) Whether there is a cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit?

e) To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?

8. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff had filed 6 documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to A6. On the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined namely, the plaintiff himself as PW1 and another person by name Arumugam, a neighbour of the plaintiff as PW2. On the side of the defendant, no documents were filed. But, two witnesses were examined namely, the defendant himself as DW1 and another person by name Anbalagan as DW2. Two documents were also marked as Court exhibits namely, the Advocate Commissioner's report was marked as Ex.C1 and the sketch attached to the Advocate Commissio