BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.07.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN S.A(MD)No.113 of 2015 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2015 S.R.Kalaiselvi ... Appellant Vs.

1.Packiaselvam

2.Rajeswari ... Respondents PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree, dated 08.07.200826.02.2001 made in A.S.No.60 of 2006, on the file of the I Additional Sub-Court, Nagercoil reversing the judgment and decree, dated 27.02.2006 made in O.S.No.431 of 2002, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Ramesh For Respondents : Mr.S.Rajasekar

J U D G M E N T

The appellant, who is the plaintiff, filed a suit in O.S.No.431 of

2002, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil for declaration and injunction.

2. After completing the pleadings and framing of issues, on the side of the appellant/plaintiff, the appellant/plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and 13 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A13. On the side of the respondents/defendants, four witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.4 and 10 documents were marked as Ex B1 to Ex.B10.

3. After trial, the trial Court partly decreed the suit in respect of declaration alone, whereas, in respect of injunction, the suit was dismissed. Challenging the said findings of the trial Court regarding the dismissal of the relief in respect of injunction, the appellant/plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.60 of 2006. Challenging the decree of declaration, the respondents/defendants filed an appeal in A.S.No.75 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Sub-Court, Nagercoil. Since both the appeals were arising out of a common judgment, both the appeals were taken up together and a common judgment was passed and both the appeals were dismissed.

4. Challenging the said dismissal of the appeal in A.S.No.60 of

2006, the appellant/plaintiff filed the present second appeal, whereas, the respondents/defendants have not filed any appeal as against the findings in A.S.No.75 of 2006.

5. While admitting the second appeal, this Court has formulated the following substantial questions of law:-

“(1) Whether the First Appellate Court is right in dismissing the suit in part having found the plaintiff alone is having valid title?

(2) Whether the First Appellate Court is right in dismissing the suit having found that Ex.A5 deed of settlement cannot be revoked as contemplated under Section 126 of T.P Act?

(3) Whether both the Courts below are not wrong in rejecting plea of possession of rights having found that the plaintiff is having valid title and defendants do not hold valid title?

4) Whether both the Courts below is right in holding that the revenue records alone assert possession and title when registered deeds are available to prove title on the plaintiff?”

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the appellant/plaintiff had purchased the suit property under Ex.A8 and from the said date onwards, she was in possession of the property. Though the respondents/defendants claim title under Ex.B2, Ex.B3 and Ex.B4, the trial Court has not accepted the case of the respondents and declared that their sale deeds are not valid and would bind on the appellant. The appellate Court has also finds that Ex.A8 is valid and the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief. However, the appellant/plaintiff has not proved the possession of the suit property, therefore, the relief of permanent injunction was dismissed. Both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence and it is the settled proposition of law that the principle of possession follows title since the suit properties are vacant site. Since the appellant/plaintiff's title has been declared, and both the Courts below ought to have granted a decree for injunction also on the basis of possession follows title. Once the title of the appellant/plaintiff is upheld, they ought to have granted a decree for injunction