IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.03.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

Second Appeal No.1383 of 2013

and M.P.No.1 of 2013

A.Ganesan

..Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff

-Vs-

1.Javeed Hussain (died)

2.The Commissioner

Vellore Municipality

Officers Line, Vellore-1.

...2^nd Respondent/2^nd Defendant/2^nd

Defendant

3.Sharifunnisa

4.Showkathullah

5.Najmunissa

(R3 to R5 impleaded vide order

in CMP Nos.9157, 9158 and 9160

of 2021 dated 12.01.2022 by TKRJ)

...

Respondents

Prayer : Second Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the

judgment and decree dated 22.11.2013 made in A.S.No.14 of 2012 on

the file of Subordinate Judge, Vellore confirming the judgment

and decree dated 22.12.2011 made in O.S.No.763 of 2000 on the

file of Principal District Munsif, Vellore.

For Appellant : Mr.C.P.Sivamohan

For Respondents : Mr.D.Gopal for R2

Mr.Jaseem Mudassar Ali – for RR 3 to 5

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant was

given the licence by the second defendant Municipality to run a

flower shop. The plaintiff seems to have entered into an

agreement with the second defendant on 17.02.1996, marked as

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Ex.A.1. As per this agreement, the plaintiff claims to have been

put in possession of the shop and he had paid the consideration

of nearly Rs.1,00,000/-. The further case of the plaintiff is

that the defendant agreed to effect the change of name for the

shop by making an application to the second defendant

Municipality, in the name of the plaintiff. Till this process is

completed, the plaintiff had agreed to pay the monthly rent to

the second defendant Municipality in the name of the first

defendant.

2. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the first

defendant acted against the agreement and attempted to interfere

with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Left

with no other alternative, the suit came to be filed seeking for

the relief of permanent injunction against the first defendant.

3. The first defendant filed a written statement and took

a stand that the suit property belongs to the second defendant

Municipality and the so called agreement marked as Ex.A.1 was a

created document. The first defendant virtually questioned the

very right of the plaintiff to seek for the relief of permanent

injunction and accordingly he sought for the dismissal of the

suit.

4. Both the Courts below, on considering the facts and

circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence, concurrently held against the plaintiff and

dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has

filed this Second Appeal before this Court.

5. One important development that had taken place during

the pendency of this Second Appeal is that the first defendant

who was the first respondent in the Second Appeal died and in his

place his legal representatives have been impleaded as

respondents 3 to 5.

6. Heard Mr.C.P.Sivamohan, learned counsel for the

appellant, Mr.D.Gopal, learned counsel for the second respondent

and Mr.Jaseem Mudassar Ali, learned counsel for the respondents 3

to 5. This Court also carefully perused the materials available

on record and the findings of both the Courts below.

7. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the shop

was allotted in favour of the first defendant by the second

defendant Municipality and whatever documents were filed and

relied upon by the plaintiff stood in the name of the first

defendant. Both the Courts also found that Ex.A.1 agreement

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

cannot be acted upon and there was absolutely no proof to show

that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit

property. The Courts below also took