IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.10.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

S.A.No.764 of 2012

and M.P.No.1 of 2012

Palaneeswari

... Appellant/Appellant/Defendant

Vs.

1. A.Krishnamoorthy (died)

2. K.Charles Vijayaraj

3. P.Leena Jasmine

4. K.Shobana Britto

5. K.Praveena

(died on 22.11.2011) leaving behind

her only minor daughter K.Reenish

D/o.Karthick Rep. by her Natural

Guardian father Mr.Karthick)

(R2 to R5 are impleaded as the legal

representatives of the deceased

1^st respondent vide Order of this Court,

dated 01.09.2021 made in CMP No.

13613 of 2021 in SA No.764 of 2012 )

... Respondents

PRAYER: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil

Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree, dated 14.03.2012

in A.S.No.356 of 2011 on the file of the learned VI Additional

Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the Judgment and

Decree, dated 20.06.2011 in O.S.No.8579 of 2008 on the file of

the learned XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Appellant

: Mr.V.Ramana Reddy

For Respondent : Ms.Vijaya Baskar (for R2 to R4)

J U D G M E N T

The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant before this

Court. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction on

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

the basis of title derived by him by way of a registered sale

deed, dated 15.11.1972.

2. The property originally belonged to one V.Raju and the

plaintiff's vendor Annakili ammal, W/o. Kathirvelu has purchased

the same from him under the registered sale deed, bearing

document No.1686 of 1963. Subsequently, the plaintiff purchased

the property which is measuring an extent of 2.5 cents by way of

a registered sale deed, dated 15.11.1972 bearing registration

No.3082 of 1972, registered at the office of the Sub Registrar

Office, Saidapet. As the defendant was attempting to interfere

with her possession, the plaintiff filed a suit.

3. In the written statement, the defendant claimed that the

plaintiff taking advantage of the vacant portion of the

property, is attempting to grab the same. The vacant portion

which was allotted to her husband who is the elder brother of

the plaintiff viz., late A.Dakshinamoorthy, and he had been in

continuous possession thereafter by her. Hence, she prayed for

dismissal of the suit.

4. At trail, the plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and

Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On the side of the defendant, she

examined herself as D.W.1 and one Thanthoni was examined as

D.W.2 and Exs.B1 to B20 were marked.

5. The trial Court upon framing appropriate issues and

consideration of the evidence on record, decreed the suit in

favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved, the defendant preferred an

appeal before the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court,

Chennai. The first appellate Court on a re-appreciation of the

evidence of record, concurred with the findings of the trial

Court and confirmed the same. Aggrieved over the same, the

defendant is before this Court.

6. The following substantial question of law was framed by

this Court on 07.11.2012 at the time of admission:

“Whether the Courts below have committed an error

in granting the relief of injunction when the

defendant does not dispute the title of the

plaintiff in respect of the property purchased by

him and on the other hand contends that there was

no attempt made by the defendant to trespass upon

any portion of the plaintiff's property and the

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

plaintiff tries derive the defendant by providing

incomplete description of the property regarding

which the relief has been sought for?”

7. According to the learned counsel for the

appellant/defendant, the entire property measuring around 1 ½

grounds belonged to one Appadurai who is the father-in-law of

the appellant/defendant and father of