C.M.A.No.1614 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 27.07.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

C.M.A.No.1614 of 2022

V.Parimalam

...Appellant

Vs.

1.D.Soundararajan

2.Chinni @ Chinnasamy

...Respondents

PRAYER : The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of

CPC., against the fair and decreetal order dated 11.04.2022 in I.A.No.2 of 2021

in O.S.No.254 of 2022 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri.

For Appellant : M/s.S.Agalya

For Respondents : Mr.M.Suresh

J U D G M E N T

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff

challenging the order dated 11.04.2022 in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.254 of

2022 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri.

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.1614 of 2022

2. The brief facts of the case is as under:

The appellant filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction

against the respondents, in respect of 2.77 acres in Pollupalli Village,

Krishnagiri Taluk and District. She has also filed an application for interim

injunction, restraining the respondents from trespassing into the said suit land

and disturbing her peaceful possession. In the petition for injunction, the

appellant stated that though she had purchased an extent of 2.27 acres by virtue

of sale deed dated 29.05.1998 the boundaries mentioned in the documents

would suggest that she is in possession of 2.77 acres; and that the boundaries

will prevail over the extent and prayed for injunction.

3. The respondents herein filed a counter resisting the said petition

stating that the appellant had purchased only 2.27 acres by virtue of sale deed

dated 29.05.1998; that the suit is filed for declaration for 2.77 acres which is

not maintainable and the remaining 50 cents is in possession of the

respondents; that the question whether the appellant is in possession 2.77 acres

has to be decided in the suit and hence, prayed for dismissing the petition for

injunction.

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.1614 of 2022

4. The learned trial Judge after considering the pleadings and the

submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, found that the

appellant has purchased 2.27 acres by virtue of a sale deed and her claim that

the boundaries will prevail over the extent has to be adjudicated in the suit; that

the suit was at the stage of trial; and that the appellant had not established

prima facie case, and dismissed the application for injuction.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the sale

deed refers to an extent of 2.27 acres, the appellant is in possession of 2.77

acres. The respondents, all of a sudden, few days prior to filing of the suit,

trespassed into the land belonging to the appellant. Therefore, she was

constrained to file the suit. The respondents had forged certain documents to

make it appear that they are in possession of 50 cents of land which is in

dispute. The respondents are now attempting to disturb the appellant's

possession as regards the disputed property. Therefore, the learned counsel

prayed that the order of the learned trial Judge has to be set aside and further,

prayed for interim injunction.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the

learned trial Judge, on consideration of the pleadings, had correctly come to the

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.1614 of 2022

conclusion that the matter has to be adjudicated in the suit and hence, dismissed

the petition for injunction. The learned trial Judge had given elaborate reasons

and hence, no intereference in the order is called for.

7. This Court finds that the claim of the appellant is that though she had

purchased a land to an extent of 2.27 acres, she is in possession of 2.77 acres

as the boundaries in the sale deed would indicate that