Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Mad) 2285

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.

Seinambu Sokara Beevi – Appellants
Versus
Pandi – Respondent
S.A.(MD)No.32 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.7705 and 422 of 2022 and 13654 of 2023
Decided On : 30-04-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ravi for R1 Mr.M.Raj Kumar for R2

In a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent factual findings unless a substantial question of law is demonstrated; additionally, a suit for bare injunction is not maintainable when the title of the property is clearly disputed.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Scope of interference - High Court's jurisdiction is strictly confined to cases involving a substantial question of law - It is not permissible for High Court to re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of facts recorded by lower courts unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence.

(B) Civil Procedure - Suit for permanent injunction - Requirement of declaratory relief - Where title is disputed or property boundaries are uncertain, a bare suit for injunction without seeking declaration of title is not maintainable.

(C) Evidence - Production of additional evidence - Order 41 Rule 27 - Appellate court cannot allow additional evidence to patch up lacunae in a party's case or to fill up omissions - It is not a matter of right but a matter of judicial discretion to be used sparingly.

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming possession of a property, later amending the extent of land claimed without producing title deeds. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff was attempting to encroach upon his adjacent property. Both trial and first appellate courts dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiff failed to prove title, possession, or the exact identity of the suit property, and noting the suit for bare injunction was unsustainable when title is contested.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the appellants failed to establish any substantial question of law, as the concurrent findings regarding the lack of evidence for title and possession were based on sound appreciation of material on record. The court rejected the petitions for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27, noting that the evidence was either available earlier or irrelevant to the issue.

Issues: Whether a suit for bare injunction is maintainable without seeking a declaration of title when the title is disputed; whether the appellate court is justified in taking additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27; and whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law.

Ratio Decidendi: The legal position is that in a suit for injunction, the identity and lawful possession of the property must be clearly established. When title is denied and facts are disputed, a plea for bare injunction without declaration is insufficient. Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts will not be disturbed in second appeal unless they suffer from perversity or legal error.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of procedural history and initial pleadings of the suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. jurisdictional limits of the high court in second appeal under section 100 cpc. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. principles governing the reception of additional evidence under order 41 rule 27 cpc. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. significance of proving the identity of suit property and evidence of title. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
5. maintainability of bare injunction suits when title is in dispute. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)

JUDGMENT

1.The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.4 of 2015 dated 16.11.2021 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.103 of 2007 dated 27.11.2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Devakottai.

2. The deceased sole plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.103 of 2007 before the District Munsif Court, Devakottai, claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status / ranking in the trial Court.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff's mother Ummulkulth Beevi before 50 years for sale consideration of Rs.90/-. She purchased an extent of 10136 sq.ft. and constructed a house therein. She had been in possession and enjoyment of the property by paying necessary taxes to the Municipality. The plaintiff's mother died in the year 1980 and thereafter, the plaintiff became the owner of the property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

(b) The defendant attempted to trespass into the suit property on25.12.2006 but the same was thwarted. The defendant filed an application before the Revenue authorities stating that some other persons name were included in the patta and sought for removal of the same and in that application, the Revenue authorities sent a notice to the plaintiff, for which, the plaintiff gave a detailed explanation stating that the defendant obtained patta for Town Survey No.10/2 but he was attempting to encroach upon the plaintiff's property in Town Survey No. 10/3. The defendant had again attempted to encroach upon the suit property on 20.08.2007, for which, the plaintiff was constrained to lodge a police complaint. While the proceedings were pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), third attempt of encroachment was made. Hence, the plaintiff was forced to file the above suit seeking permanent injunction.

5. The defence of the defendant, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The defendant purchased an extent of 5921 sq.ft. from one Ambrose @ Ambrose Jamal through his power agent Beer Mohamed for valuable consideration, situated on the north of the plaintiff's house. The defendant purchased the property situated in Survey No.10/2, which was subsequently sub divided as 10/2B. The plaintiff has not chosen to file the sale deed executed in favour of his mother nor the particulars about the seller from whom his mother purchased the suit property nor the length and breadth of the property purchased and its four boundaries.

(b) The plaintiff wanted to grab the defendant's property by adding the same into Survey No.10/3. The plaintiff has furnished wrong four boundaries. The suit for permanent injunction without seeking declaratory relief is not maintainable. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the pleadings of both the parties, framed the following issues,

1. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit property?

2. Whether the suit property and the property for which the plaintiff is claiming rights are different?

3. Whether the plaintif

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Mad) 2285

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTK.MURALI SHANKAR, J. Seinambu Sokara Beevi – AppellantsVersusPandi – RespondentS.A.(MD)No.32 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.7705 and 422 of 2022 and 13654 of 2023Decided On : 30-04-2026

Cases Referred (5)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.

Seinambu Sokara Beevi – Appellants
Versus
Pandi – Respondent
S.A.(MD)No.32 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.7705 and 422 of 2022 and 13654 of 2023
Decided On : 30-04-2026