Madras High Court

Munsif vs "11.3. Where The Plaintiff Is In on 30 April, 2021

Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.04.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

S.A.No.93 of 2008

1. Saraswhathy

2. Ramamoorthy

3. Lakshmi Ammal

4. Pakkirisamy

...Appellan
ts

1. Thiyagarajan

2. Senthil

3. Angalammal

..Respondents

1/25

http://www.judis.nic.in
Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

PRAYER The Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the

Civil Procedure Code to prefer the Memorandum of Grounds of

Second Appeal to this Hon'ble Court against the Judgement and

decree dated 31.08.2007 made in A.S.No.78 of 2006 on the file

of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram,

confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2006 made in

O.S.No.287 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the District

Munsif, Parangipet.

For Appellants : Mr. R. Agilesh
For Respondents : Mr. Srinath Sridevan for R1
Not ready in notice - R2 and R3

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful defendants 2 to 5 are the appellants before

this Court. The parties are referred to in the same array as in the

suit.

http://www.judis.nic.in Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

2. The plaintiff had filed the suit O.S.No.287 of 1996 on the file

of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Porto Nova

(Parangipettai) for a bare injunction restraining the defendants from

interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit A

Schedule property and for a recovery of possession in respect of B

Schedule property. The B Schedule property formed part of the A

Schedule property.

3. Suit Property:

a) The suit A Schedule property measures an extent of 12 1/2

cents and is comprised in S.No.88/5 of Mutlur Village, Parangipettai,

Chidambaran out a total extent of 0.34 cents with following

boundaries:

East by: Mariammankoil and Sambodai Pattai West by: the properties of the plaintiff's vendor South R.S.No.88/6

by:

North by: Abdul Haq lands excluding 10 feet pathway on the northern side.

http://www.judis.nic.in Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

b) The B Schedule property is the southern portion of the A

Schedule property measuring east west 12 meters on the northern

side, 11.4 meters on the eastern side and 14 meters on the western

side bounded:

On the east by : Sambodai Pattai On the West by : the lands belonging to Abdul Haq On the North by :remaining portion of the A Schedule property On the South by : R.S.No.88/6.

4. Plaintiff's case:

4.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that the larger extent of the

suit properties was the ancestral property of the Shaik Abdul Haq

from whom the plaintiff had purchased the A Schedule property

under a registered sale deed dated 24.10.1994 for a sum of

Rs.25,000/-. Although the lands were originally used for agricultural

purposes, however since the adjacent lands had been converted into

residential areas, no cultivation activities were taking place in the 'A'

Schedule property and the lands were kept vacant. From the date of

the sale, the plaintiff had been in effective possession and enjoyment

http://www.judis.nic.in Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

of the suit property. The defendants who are total strangers to the

suit property demanded that the plaintiff should sell the suit schedule

property to them which demand was turned down by the plaintiff.

Therefore, they had started to interfere with the plaintiff's

possession and enjoyment of the suit property and in the month of

December 2003, defendants 6 and 7 had trespassed into the portion

delineated as the B Schedule property. Therefore, left with no other

alternative, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit in question.

5. Defendants' case:

5.1. The written statement was filed by defendants 1 to 3 and

adopted by defendants 4 and 5. They would contend that neither the

plaintiff nor his predecessor in title had any right to the suit property

at any point of time.

5.2. The defendants would further contend that the description

of the property is false. It was their further case that to the west of

the Pattai, property measuring 8 1/2 cents comprised in S.No. 88/5

http://www.judis.nic.in Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

was owned by three persons, one Murugesan owned 0.02 1/2 cents

in the north, south of this property one Annamalai owned 0.03 cents

and further to the south of Annamalai's property, the first defendant

owned 0.03 cents. To the west of these three items of property, one

Uthandi Padayachi owned 0.04 cents of lands in R.S.No. 88/5, by a

sale deed dated 30.08.1944, he sold this extent to Thayarammal.

Under this sale deed, the Survey Number was wrongly mentioned as

88/4 when actually the property was comprised in S.No.88/5. The

property was bounded

On the North by: the lands which was sold to Uthandi Padayachi by Palani Puchi who in turn sold it to Abdul haq. On the west : it was bounded by the property of Shaikh Khader, On the South by : Murugesan, On the East by :Pattai.

Under three sale deeds dated 16.07.1981, Thayarammal had

sold 1 1/4 cents to Murugesan, the middle portion of 1 1/2 cents to

Annamalai and the south extent of 1 1/4 to the first defendant.

5.3. Once again the Survey Number was wrongly mentioned as

S.No.88/4 instead of S.No.88/5. By reason of this purchase,

http://www.judis.nic.in Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

Murugesan became entitled to a total extent of 0.03 3/4 cents, and

Annamali to an extent of 0.04 1/2 cents and the first defendant 4 1/4

cents.

5.4. The wife of Murugesan, Vasantha after his death sold the

property to the third defendant and Annamalai sold his property to

the second defendant. Therefore, it was the contention of the

defendants that the suit property was in the occupation and

possession of these defendants. They would further contend that

west of this 8 1/2 cents, which is the suit property, the remaining

extent in R.S.No.88/5 belonged to Shaik Khader, who also owned

properties in other Survey Numbers. On his demise, his sons Shaik

Abdul Haq and his brothers had partitioned the properties and the

properties west of the suit property in R.S.No.88/5 was the subject

matter of partition in which they had left a pathway to access the

road on the left.

5.5. The defendants would further contend that the fact that the

suit property had not been divided by Shaik Abdul Haq and his

http://www.judis.nic.in Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

brothers and that they had not objected to the compound wall being

put upon by the defendants clearly indicates that they had conceded

the ownership of the defendants to the suit property.

6. Reply Statement:

6.1. A reply statement was filed by the plaintiff to the written

statement of the defendants hereinabove.

6.2. The plaintiff would submit that the entire contents of the

written statement was totally false and the lands in S.No.88/5 was

the ancestral property of plaintiff's vendor and they owned the entire

extent in S.No.88/5. The defendants had no semblance of right to

the property in question.

6.3. During the pendency of the suit, an application was taken

out for appointing an Advocate commissioner to note down the

physical features of the suit schedule property and submit his report

along with measurements. The Advocate Commissioner had visited

http://www.judis.nic.in Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

the property for the first time without the help of the Surveyor and

had submitted his Report. Thereafter, the Advocate Commissioner

had once again visited the property with the Surveyor and after

measuring the property in question had submitted a Report.

6.4. The plaintiff had examined himself as P.W.1 and his

neighbor Kuppan as P.W.2. Exs.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of

the plaintiff. The defendants on their side had examined the third

defendant as D.W.1, one Veerapan and Vasantha as D.W.2 and D.W.3

respectively and marked Ex.B1 to B10. The Commissioner's Report

and Plan were marked as Exs.C1 to C4.

6.5. The learned District Munsif on considering the evidence on

record rendered a finding that it was the plaintiff who was in

possession of the suit property and that the defendants had no right

to the suit property as they were in possession and enjoyment of the

lands comprised in S.No.88/4 which was the Survey number in which

their properties were situate.

http://www.judis.nic.in Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

6.6. The learned Judge had held that as early as in the year

1944, the defendants predecessor in title was in enjoyment of the

lands comprised only in S.No.88/4 and not the lands situate in

S.No.88/5.

7. Appellate Court:

7.1. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, defendants 2 to 5

had filed A.S.No.78 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,

Chidambaram. The learned Subordinate Judge on a detailed analysis

of the evidence on record confirmed the decree and judgment of the

Trial Judge and aggrieved by the above judgment and decree the

defendants 2 to 5 are before this Court.

Question of law

7.2. When the Second Appeal was listed for admission, the

same

was admitted on the following substantial question of law.

http://www.judis.nic.in Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

" Whether the Lower Court is correct in

decreeing the suit without a prayer of

declaration regarding "B" Schedule property,

while denying by defendants title itself ?

(should be read as when the defendants had

denied the title of the plaintiff)"

8. Submissions:

8.1. Mr. R. Agilesh, learned counsel arguing on behalf of the

appellants 2 to 5 would contend that the very framing of the suit was

wrong in as much as the plaintiff has not sought a relief for declaring

their title to the suit property though the defendants have

categorically denied the title of the plaintiff to the suit property and

that they are not in possession of the same. However, despite the

above defense, the plaintiff has not taken any step whatsoever to

amend the suit to include the relief of declaration.

8.2. The learned counsel would submit that defendants are the

http://www.judis.nic.in Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

true owners of the suit schedule property and the sale deed Ex.B1

which is the parent document followed by the other sale deeds have

wrongly described the Survey No. as 88/4 instead of S.No.88/5.

However, the boundaries of the property would clearly show that the

said property is none else than the suit property.

8.3. The learned counsel would further submit that the plaintiff

has not produced the original sale deed Ex.A1 and its only a certified

copy that had been filed. No documents have been filed to prove

their possession. Even Ex.A2 Patta stands in the name of seven

persons and therefore the Sale Deed by only one co-owner will not

clothe the plaintiff with a right to the suit property.

8.4. The learned Counsel would further submit that the plaintiff

has not chosen to examine their vendor. This would clearly prove

that the plaintiff was not entitled to the suit property and was not in

possession of the same. In support of his argument that a suit

simplicitor for a bare injunction is not maintainable when title is

questioned, he has relied on the judgment reported in "([2009-2-

http://www.judis.nic.in Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

L.W. page 546], Anathula Sudhakar vs P.Buchi Reddy (Dead)

By Lrs & Ors)", in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down

certain principles as to when a suit for permanent injunction

simplicitor would lie and when it would be necessary to seek the

relief of declaration or possession together with injunction as a

consequential relief. He would rely on paragraph 11.3, where the

learned Judge had held as follows:

"11.3. Where the plaintiff is in

possession, but his title to the property is in

dispute, or under a cloud, or where the

defendant asserts title thereto and there is

also a threat of dispossession from defendant,

the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of

title and the consequential relief of injunction.

Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or

in dispute and he is not in possession or not

able to establish possession, necessarily the

plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration,

http://www.judis.nic.in Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

possession and injunction."

8.5. He would contend that in the instant case despite the fact

that the defendants had questioned the title of the plaintiff to the suit

property, the plaintiff did not take any steps to amend the suit and

had continued with the suit for bare injunction. He also relied on the

judgment reported in "([2016-1-L.W. Page 998], L.C.

Hanumanthappa (since dead) represented by his Lrs. vs. H.B.

Shivakumar)", in support of his argument that even an application

for amending the relief should be taken within the prescribed time

and once it is time barred, the amendment cannot be permitted.

8.6. He would therefore submit that the Courts below have

failed to appreciate this fundamental question of law and therefore

the judgment and decree of the Courts below requires to be set

aside.

8.7. Mr. Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel appearing on behalf

http://www.judis.nic.in Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

of the first respondent would contend that the defendants have no

manner of right, title or interest in the suit schedule property. The

suit property has been described within well defined boundaries and

the contention of the plaintiff that the description of the property is

vague is baseless.

8.8. The counsel would draw the attention of the Court to the

finding of the Trial Court that the description of the property as

provided in the sale deed produced on the side of the defendants

namely Exs.B2 to B9 would clearly establish that the property in

question is not the suit property. The properties covered under these

sale deeds have been described not only within boundaries but also

the Survey Number. Therefore, the contention of the defendants that

the Survey Number has been wrongly described is incorrect as the

boundaries have clearly described the properties subject matter of

each of these deeds.

8.9. The learned Counsel would submit that the argument that

a suit for bare injunction without the relief of declaration is not

http://www.judis.nic.in Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

maintainable will not apply to the instant case since the cloud on title

is not based on any defect in the documents of the plaintiffs nor has

the defendants proved that the suit property belongs to them

absolutely. On the contrary, a mere reading of the description of the

properties that are the subject matter of Exs. B2 to B9 would clearly

show that the defendants are in no way connected with the properties

comprised in S.No.88/5. The counsel would further submit that

S.No.88/5 measures a total extent of 34 cents and out of this, an

extent of 12 1/2 cents has been purchased by the plaintiff

immediately abutting the Pattai on the East and the MarimmanKoil

towards the Southern end. As regards possession, learned counsel

would submit that the property in question is a vacant site and P.W.2

who is a local resident has clearly deposed to the fact that possession

is with the plaintiff and when defendants 6 and 7 attempted to

trespass, the villagers had joined together and forced them to move

out of the suit property. He would rely on the judgment reported in

"[AIR 1963 Mad 147], Dharmakanny Nadar Siviseshmuthu and

Ors vs, Mahalingam Nadara Gopalakrishna Nadar and Ors", in

support of his contention that where there is an iota of doubt about

http://www.judis.nic.in Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

survey number and where the boundaries are specific and definite

then boundaries would prevail.

8.10. The dispute in that case was whether boundaries should

prevail over the area sold. The learned judge had observed that

where boundaries are vague and indefinite then area would prevail

but where boundaries are specific and definite then boundaries would

prevail. He would also rely on the judgment reported in "[(2020) 3

MLJ page 466], J. Ajandhavalli vs V.M. Balamohanthambi)",

once again in support of the argument that where survey number and

boundaries are given, boundaries would prevail.

9. Heard the counsel and perused the papers.

10. Discussion:

10.1. The main argument advanced by the defendants is that

despite denial of title, plaintiff had not come forward to amend the

http://www.judis.nic.in Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

suit to include the relief of declaration. The second line of attack is

that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule property since

the property has been sold to the defendants and their predecessor in

title under Exs.B2 to B9 and that the description of the survey

number in the above deeds has been wrongly given as S.No.88/4

instead of S.No.88/5. The third defense is that the plaintiff has not

proved his possession and being the suit for bare injunction in the

absence of such proof, the suit has to automatically fail.

10.2. As regards the first argument that the failure to seek the

relief of declaration of title is fatal to the suit, may not be available to

the defendants. Even in the judgment relied upon by the defendants

reported in "([2009-2-L.W. page 546], Anathula Sudhakar vs

P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors)", the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has set out the principles as to when a suit for permanent injunction

would lie where it is necessary to file a suit for declaration,

possession and injunction as a consequential relief.

10.3. In paragraph 11.3, the Bench has stated as follows:

http://www.judis.nic.in Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

"11.3. Where the plaintiff is in

possession, but his title to the property is in

dispute, or under a cloud, or where the

defendant asserts title thereto and there is

also a threat of dispossession from defendant,

the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of

title and the consequential relief of injunction.

Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or

in dispute and he is not in possession or not

able to establish possession, necessarily the

plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration,

possession and injunction."

10.4. In paragraph 12 of the very same judgment, a

clarification has also been made as to when the prayer for declaration

would be necessary which is extracted hereinbelow:

12. We may however clarify that a

http://www.judis.nic.in Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

prayer for declaration will be necessary only if

the denial of title by the defendant or

challenge to plaintiff's title raised a cloud on

the title of plaintiff to the property. A cloud is

said to raise over a person's title, when some

apparent defect in his title to a property, or

when some prima facie right of a third party

over it, is made out or shown. An action for

declaration, is the remedy to remove the

cloud on the title to the property. On the

other hand, where the plaintiff has clear title

supported by documents, if a trespasser

without any claim to title or an interloper

without any apparent title, merely denies the

plaintiff's title, it does not amount to raising a

cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will

not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for

declaration and a suit for injunction may be

sufficient."

http://www.judis.nic.in Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

10.5. When the documents of title filed on the side of the

defendants are considered, it is clearly evident that the property

purchased by them is comprised in S.No. 88/4 and the description of

the Survey Number given by no stretch of imagination can be stated

an oversight/error since the boundaries to the property subject

matter of each of these deeds does not coincide with description of

the suit property as indicated in the plaint Ex.A1 and in Ex.C4 Plan.

The 3rd defendant as D.W.1 has conceded that the vendor of the

plaintiff owned properties not only in S.No.88/5 but that they also

owned properties in S.Nos.88/3, 88/4, 88/5. The property comprised

in S.No.88/4 measured a total extent of 12 cents. In this property

one Uthandi Padayachi had purchased property measuring an extent

of 4 cents and it is this property which he conveyed to his wife

Thayarammal under a sale deed dated 30.08.1944. The western

boundary is described as Shaik Kadar's property. The southern

boundary is described as Pattai and the North boundary as that of

Palani padayachi whereas the suit property has the lands in

S.No.88/6 as its southern boundary and the remaining extent of land

http://www.judis.nic.in Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

belonging to Shaik Abdul Haq on their northern as well as western

boundaries. The Eastern boundary is the Pattai. Ex.A2, patta would

also show that the family of Shaik Abdul Haq owned an extent of 32

and odd cents in S.No.88/5. Ex.A3 which is the adangal extract also

confirms the same and shows that S.No.88/5 has been renumbered

as S.No.88/5 A. Ex.A2 also confirms the fact that the family of Shaik

Abdul Haq owns lands in S.No.88/4 as well. Therefore, it is Crystal

clear that the defendants have no right, title and interest to the suit

schedule property. Considering the failure to seek the relief of

declaration is not fatal to the suit, since B2 to B9 does not relate to

the suit property, the defendants have no right, title or interest to the

lands comprised in S.No.88/5. Further the documents filed on the

side of the defendants would clearly prove that they have no

semblance of a right or interest to the lands comprised in S.No.88/5

and consequently the suit property.

10.5. As regards the arguments with reference to possession,

the suit schedule property is a vacant site and the plaintiff has

examined as P.W.2 who has in a very cogent fashion depose that it is

http://www.judis.nic.in Second Appeal No.93 of 2008

the plaintiff who is in possession of the suit property. This evidence

has not been rebutted by the defendants. Considering the fact that

the plaintiff has proved their title to the property and as the same is

a vacant site, the principle possession follows title would apply.

10.6. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and decree of

the Courts below. The substantial question of law is therefore

answered against the defendants/appellants. In fine, the Second

Appeal is dismissed. No costs.



                                                                                  30.04.2021


                      Index     : Yes/No
                      Speaking order/non-speaking order
                      mrn








http://www.judis.nic.in
                              Second Appeal No.93 of 2008




                                   P.T.ASHA, J.,

                                                   mrn




                              S.A.No.93 of 2008








http://www.judis.nic.in
                              Second Appeal No.93 of 2008




                                      30.04.2021








http://www.judis.nic.in