Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 79304
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. Murali Shankar, J
A. Subramanian – Appellant
Versus
A. Rajendran – Respondent
S.A.(MD)No.4 of 2020|A.S.No.165 of 2018|O.S.No. 61 of 2008|I.A.No.146 of 2008
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.Prabhakar
For the Respondents: J.Anandhavalli
A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must establish their case on its own merit; where a plaintiff admits to a family partition of property, they are precluded from claiming exclusive possession, and suppression of such material facts disentitles them to equitable relief.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 - Suit for permanent injunction - Principles of possession - Plaintiff claiming exclusive tenancy ignoring partition - Trial court and first appellate court dismissing suit for items partitioned to defendant - Held, plaintiff must succeed on own strength - Admission of partition by plaintiff defeats claim - Suppression of material facts disentitles equitable discretionary relief. (Paras 12, 13, 15, 21)
Facts of the case:
The parties are brothers, children of a statutory cultivating tenant under a temple. The plaintiff filed for permanent injunction alleging exclusive possession of all suit properties. The defendant asserted he was in possession of specific portions of the land (items 3-5) following an oral partition after their parents' demise. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the injunction suit regarding items 3-5.
Findings of Court:
The courts concurrently found that the plaintiff admitted to the factum of partition in his cross-examination. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to prove his own possession while suppressing material facts regarding the familial division of the properties, thus failing to approach the court with clean hands.
Issues: Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the injunction suit despite the absence of formal evidence regarding the defendant's status as a cultivating tenant.
Ratio Decidendi: A plaintiff seeking the equitable relief of permanent injunction must prove his case on his own merit and approach the court with clean hands. Admissions made during cross-examination regarding family partitions are binding and negate claims of exclusive possession over the entirety of disputed properties.
Result: Second Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the parties' claims regarding property possession and current status of the litigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. formulation of the substantial question of law and the primary arguments presented by the council. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court’s analysis: plaintiff’s admission of partition and failure to prove exclusive possession mandates dismissal. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. formal dismissal of the second appeal and final order. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT
The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.165 of 2018, dated 19.08.2019, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Lalgudi, confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.61 of 2008, dated 28.03.2012, on the file of the District Mnsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking in their original suit.
3. Admittedly, the plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. It is not in dispute that the suit properties are belonging to Arulmighu Thirumoolanathaswamy Temple of Poovalur Village, Lalgudi Taluk, that one Andi Muthuraja, father of the plaintiff and the defendant was the statutory cultivating tenant in respect of the suit properties under the said temple, that Andi Muthuraja had three sons namely the plaintiff, the defendant and one Selvam, that the said Selvam died as bachelor and that the said Andi Muthuraja and subsequently, his wife had died intestate.
4. The plaintiff, claiming to be the cultivating tenant of the entire suit properties, by alleging interference from the defendant – brother, has filed the above suit, claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The defendant has admitted that the items 1 and 2 of the suit properties are in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff as he is the cultivating tenant therefor. But, according to the defendant, he is the cultivating tenant in respect of items 3 to 5 of the suit properties. Since the defendant has admitted the case of the plaintiff in respect of items 1 and 2 of the suit properties, the suit was decreed granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the items 1 and 2 of the suit properties and that the said judgment and decree was not under challenge. The challenge before the first appellate Court as well as before this Court is only with respect to the items 3 to 5 of the suit properties.
5. The case of the plaintiff is that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the entire suit properties as a statutory cultivating tenant for more than 25 years, that the plaintiff has filed a petition before the revenue authorities to fix fair rent and accordingly, fair rent was fixed in F.R.A.No.95/1987, that the temple authorities had also filed petitions to collect arrears of rent and eviction was also ordered on several occasions, that the plaintiff has been paying kists for the suit properties continuously, that the plaintiff used to measure paddy and made payment to the temple through the defendant at sometimes, that the defendant has absolutely no connection whatsoever with the suit lands, that since there was misunderstanding between the brothers, the defendant during the third week of January 2008, had attempted to disturb the plaintiff's possession, but the same was thwarted, that the defendant who is a politically influenced person, had again attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession during the month of February 2008 and that therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit claiming permanent injunction.
6. The defence of the defendant is that after the death of their father Andi Muthuraja, the defendant has been cultivating items 3 to 5 of the suit properties situated in SN.No.431, which admeasures 2.25 acres, that the plaintiff has been
