Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 78766
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J
Rajendran – Appellant
Versus
Sulochana – Respondent
Second Appeal | S.A.(MD)No.416 of 2018
For the Appellants: Mr.N.Balakrishnan
For the Respondent: Mr.M.Rameshkumar
A suit for permanent injunction does not require a declaration when defendants fail to establish their title, allowing the plaintiff's claim to stand based on proven possession.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, Section 100; Evidence Act, Sections 91 and 92; Registration Act, Sections 17 and 49 - Second appeal against reversal of trial court's judgment - Plaintiff purchased suit properties through registered sale deed; defendants failed to establish claim over the properties; suit for permanent injunction maintained despite absence of declaration; lower appellate court reaffirmed plaintiff's possession and title. (Paras 4-15)
(B) The principle of law dictates that mere denial of title by the defendant, when unsupported by evidence, does not compel a plaintiff to seek a declaration to maintain an injunction. (Paras 14-15)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff challenged the defendants’ interference with her possession of properties purchased through a registered deed. The defendants claimed title without producing valid documents. The trial court dismissed the suit; however, the lower appellate court reversed this, establishing that the plaintiff maintained her rights based on the sale deed and revenue records.
Findings of Court:
The plaintiff was deemed to have established her rights and possession through documents, thereby upholding her case for injunction without requiring a declaration of title.
Issues: Whether an injunction suit without declaration is maintainable against defendants asserting claim via unregistered documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court confirmed that when defendants fail to substantiate their claims, an injunction suit is sustainable based on the plaintiff's established title through valid evidence.
Result: Second Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's purchase and alleged interference by defendants. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. court's evaluation of evidence and findings on property rights. (Para 7 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. arguments presented by both parties regarding possession and title. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. final decision on the appeal. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT
The defendants are before this Court on appeal.
2. The Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 09.07.2018 in A.S.No.102 of 2017, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Aranthangi, reversing the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2016 in O.S.No.20 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
4. The case of the plaintiff is that she has purchased the items 1 to 6 of the suit properties through a registered sale deed dated 21.02.2005 in Ex.A.1 from one Ramasamy, Amirthalingam and Velu for a valuable consideration. Since there was an error that crept in the sale deed in Ex.A.1, the same was rectified through a rectification deed dated 03.03.2005 in Ex.A.2. Pursuant to the purchase, the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit properties and the revenue documents were mutated in her favour and Patta No.528 was also issued. The plaintiff's vendors were paying the taxes for the suit properties prior to the purchase and patta stood in their names for fasli 1395, 1396, 1411, 1412, 1413 and 1414. Pursuant to her purchase, the same has been transferred in favour of the plaintiff and she had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on 20.01.2006, the defendants came and interfered with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties. As such, the plaintiff had come with the suit seking for permanent injunction.
5. The defendants resisted the suit by filing a written statement. They disputed that the properties in S.No.83/3A, 83/3C belonged to three persons, who are claimed to be the vendors of the plaintiff. It is the specific case of the defendants that the first item of the suit properties in S.No.83/3A belonged to one Arunachala Thevar which was purchased by him on 17.07.1963 for a valuable consideration. The legal heirs of the first defendant represented by the first defendant's wife, on 25.07.2005 had purchased that item of the suit properties from the vendor – Arunachala Thevar on 25.07.2005. Further the east of the first item having 37 cents in S.No.83/6 are lying as one plot. The plaintiff did not have any right over the third item of the suit properties, as the vendoes do not have any right. Further the third item along with S.No.83/7 was in the long possession of the fifth defendant almost for 25 years and he had planted coconut trees and is in possession, thereby, the claim made by the plaintiff in respect of these properties are not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the suit.
6. During trial, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined on the side of the plaintiff and Exhibits A.1 to A.11 were marked. On the side of the defendants D.W.1 to D.W.9 were examined and Exhibits B.1 to B.3 were marked. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the report, plan along with the Surveyor's plan were marked as Exs.C.1 to C.3.
7. The trial Court, after analysing the evidences, concluded that when the defendants had claimed right over the suit properties, pursuant to a purchase and had raised a cloud on title, the plaintiff ought to have amended the relief seeking for declaration and a suit for mere injunction is not maintainable. The trial Court also on finding that the evidence of D.W.6, who is the vendor of the plaintiff, supports the case of the defendants, had dismissed the suit. On appeal, the lower appellate Court reappraised the evidences and on finding that the defendants have not established any right by filing any registered documents, came to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff for mere injunction
