IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. /2026 @ SLP (C) Nos. 1989-1990/2024 P. ELAIYAPPAN ...Appellant VERSUS NATARAJAN & ORS. ...Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. These appeal(s) impugn common judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras¹ dated 27.01.2023 in Second Appeal Nos. 704 and 705 of 2017.

3. Two suits seeking permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of same property were instituted. Original Suit (for short, O.S.) No. 74 of 1998 was instituted by P. Elaiyappan (the appellant herein), inter alia, against Natarajan (the first respondent herein). Whereas O.S. No. 371 of 1997 was instituted by the first respondent, inter alia, against the present Signature Not Verified CHETAN ARORA D 16 a : t 2 e 9 : : 2 1 0 4 2 I 6 S . T 03.09 appellant.

Reason:

1 High Court

4. There is no dispute that the suit schedule property was owned by one Ganapathy. Ganapathy suffered a money decree in execution of which, the suit property was sold through court conducted auction dated 03.05.1991 to one Ramasamy. Ramasamy vide sale deed dated 15.10.1991 sold it to the present appellant.

5. On the other hand, the first respondent, who instituted O.S. No. 371 of 1997, claimed that though original owner of the suit property was Ganapathy, he died in an accident and prior to his death he had executed a registered Will in favour of the first respondent. As a result, the first respondent is the owner of the suit property.

6. Interestingly, both sides claimed that they are in possession of the suit property and the other side is causing unlawful interference in their possession.

7. The trial court decreed the suit of the present appellant whereas the suit of the first respondent was dismissed.

8. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial court, two first appeal(s) were preferred which were dismissed thereby affirming the decree passed by the trial court. Though no specific issue was framed on the question of possession, apparently, both sides led evidence on it as the same was implicit in the relief sought. Further, in paragraph 19 of its judgment, the first appellate court, on the question of possession, observed as follows² “19. Suit properties were purchased by defendant Elaiyappan on 15.10.1991. After so purchasing, patta was granted in the name of defendant Elaiyappan in respect of the suit properties. The land ownership register for that is exhibit D-6. The notices given by the plaintiff Natarajan to the Revenue Officers not to change the name in patta are exhibits P-15 and P-16. But as exhibit D-6 was given in the name of defendant Elaiyappan, in the appeal filed by the plaintiff Natarajan to cancel that the Sub Collector passed an order dated 22.03.1994 in exhibit P-20 that no order

2 Note: The extract is copied from Annexure P-4. Possibility of typographical errors in the said Annexure are not ruled out.

can be passed for patta name transfer as the dispute as to title of the suit properties were pending in civil court. For the tapioca mill in the suit property, the registration certificate issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Rasipuram is in the name of defendant Elaiyappan. That Form-D2 in exhibit D-7 is what was issued in the name of defendant Elaiyappan by the aforesiad Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Rasipuram. That is exhibit D-8. In order to run tapioca mill in the suit properties, Small Scale Administration Registration Certificate has been given in the name of defendant Elaiyappan by the Tamil Nadu Government. That is exhibit D-9. For the tapioca mill in the suit properties which was in the name of Ganapathy, the Commissioner passed an order dated 15.11.1993 transferring it in the name of defendant Elaiyappan. That is exhibit D-10. For running business in the suit properties in the name of Sri Lakshmi Seco Factory of Ganapathy, Deputy Chief Inspector of Industries, Salem passed an order exhibit D-12. The exhibits D-13 to D-16 confirm t