Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 19785
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice V.SIVAGNANAM
PACKIRISAMY – Appellant
Versus
SAIBUDHEEN – Respondent
Permanent injunctions require proof of possession; mere ownership claims without evidence do not suffice.
Headnote:
Property - Title and Injunction - No specific act referenced - The court evaluated the validity of property claims through historical transactions and their implications for injunction claims.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involves a property originally owned by one person and sold/transferred through various deeds to a plaintiff, who seeks to prevent a defendant's alleged trespass, contesting the latter's claims of ownership and asserting entitlement based on settled deeds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff could not prove possession or entitlement to the entire claimed property, leading to the conclusion that the injunction granted by the First Appellate Court was improperly based on admissions rather than evidence.
Issues: The main issues were whether the First Appellate Court correctly granted a permanent injunction without evidence of possession and if the suit was indeed for partition as needed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that injunctions cannot be granted based solely on claims of ownership without proof of possession, thus overturning the First Appellate Court's decision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the second appeal, restoring the Trial Court's judgment and denying the injunction.
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 18.11.2009 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam in A.S.No.9 of 2008, reversing the judgment and Decree dated 28.11.2007 passed by the learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam in O.S. No. 340 of 2004 .
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the Trial Court.
3. The defendant in O.S. No. 340 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Nagapattinam, is the appellant in this Second Appeal.
4. The fact of the case is that the suit property originally belonged to Dhanalakshmi Ammal in view of the purchase made by her on 10.08.1955 from Muthaiya Pathar. On 11.02.1959, Dhanalakshmi Ammal sold the property to Balkis Ammal, who in turn, executed a registered Settlement deed dated 23.03.1980 and settled the suit property to her sister Hameedu Vanjur Ammal. The said Hameed Vanjur Anmal had executed a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff on 5.7.1987. Since the said Hammedu Vanjur Ammal died, her son Sheik Alaudheen alleging that he succeeded to the estate of his mother and become owner of the suit property executed a settlement deed dated 22.5.1989, infavour of the plaintiff and thereby, the plaintiff had obtained the entire suit property and he is in peaceful enjoyment of the same. The suit property is managed by the plaintiff's Power Agent,namely,Asraf Ali. The patta to the suit property stands in the name of plaintiff's father Sheik Alaudheen. The defendant, who resides on the western side of suit property and who does not have any right and title over the suit property broke open the western wall of the suit property in the last month of March and attempted to trespass into the suit property and thereby, caused damage to the tune of Rs.5000/- to the plaintiff. With regard to the same, the plaintiff has preferred a complaint before Thittacherry Police Station and the police warned the defendant not to cause interference with the suit property. Again, on 30.06.04, the defendant attempted to break the western wall of the suit property and trespass into the suit property and the same was prevented by the plaintiff.
Hence, the suit.
5. The defendant filed written statement and contested the suit stating that the plaintiff only has to prove all the transactions with regard to the suit property from the year 1955 till the plaintiff obtained the suit property, i.e. 1989. The Muthaiya Pathar is the eldest brother of Dhanalakshmi Ammal's husband Rathina Asari, hence, the sale in favour of brother's wife is a nominal one. Therefore Dhanalakshmi Ammal and following her Balkis Amman, Vamkir Ammal, Sheik Almidheen and plaintiff cannot be said to be in enjoyment of the suit property. The house was under the enjoyment and possession of Muthaiya Pathar and after his death, his only son Mani Asari obtained it and after death of Mani Asari, now the suit property is under the enjoyment of this defendant, his brothers and sisters. In the entire house, western half portion was allotted to this defendant's family and eastern half portion was allotted to Rathina Asari under a family arrangement. As per the said arrangement, the western half portion is under the enjoyment of this defendant and his sisters and it is not under the enjoyment of plaintiff. The attempt of the plaintiff to take enjoyment through Thittacherry Police station was foiled by this defendant and only to take possession, this suit is indirectly filed. The boundaries stated in the suit property are not correct. In the entire house, plaintiff has right for half portion and rest of the half portion belongs to the family of Rathina Asari. Seeking partition, notice was sent to Rathina Asari's son Mani Raj, but, he never gave reply and hence, only a partition suit has to be filed. Therefore this suit may be dismissed with costs.
6. On the basis of the abovesaid pleas set out by the respective parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Co
