Madras High Court
Thulasi vs Robert on 4 August, 2021
S.A.No.1251 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
S.A.No.1251 of 2008
1.Thulasi
2.Mohan ... Appellants
..Vs..
Robert ... Respondent
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the C.P.C., 1908
against the decree and Judgment dated 30.04.2008 of the Subordinate
Judge of Gudiyatham in A.S.No.30 of 2007, upholding the decree and
judgment dated 13.06.2007 of the District Munsif, Gudiyatham in
O.S.No.880 of 1996.
For Appellants : Mr.Bharath Gowtham
for Ms.P.Veena Suresh
For Respondent : Mr.K.A.Ravindran
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful plaintiffs before both the Courts below, have
filed the present appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1251 of 2008
2.The plaintiffs claiming themselves to be the cultivating
tenants of the suit property filed the suit in O.S.No.880 of 1996 before the
District Munsif, Gudiyatham, Vellore District seeking for a relief of bare
injunction.
3.The case of the plaintiffs is that they have been in possession
and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 30 years and also built
up a terraced house over the same. According to them they are residing in
the said property and that the landlords of the suit property, unlawfully
attempted to trespass during the year 1991, which forced them to file a
suit against their landlords in O.S.No.629 of 1991 for a permanent
injunction. Their further contention is that since, the defendant, at the
instigation of the landlords of the plaintiffs is attempting to trespass into
the suit property, they filed the suit in O.S.No.880 of 1996 for a
permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from
interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1251 of 2008
4.The defendant resisted the suit filed by the plaintiffs on the
following grounds.
i. The plaintiffs had never cultivated any crops in the suit property.
ii. They were never in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
iii. In fact, the defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.688 of 1991 on the file
of the District Munsif, Gudiyatham, Vellore District as the
plaintiffs trespassed into the suit property.
iv. The petition filed by the plaintiffs before Revenue authorities in
T.R.A.No.15 of 1991 to record their names as cultivating tenants of
the suit property, was dismissed on 13.03.1992.
Hence, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5.Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the
following issues:
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a permanent injunction as
prayed for?
ii. To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled?
In the Trial Court, the first plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1
and marked Ex.A1 to A19. Three witnesses were examined on the side of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1251 of 2008
the defendant and Ex.B1 to B35 were marked.
6.After full contest, the learned District Munsif, Gudiyatham,
Vellore District dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs by observing that
the plaintiffs did not establish their possession over the suit property.
Aggrieved over the decree and judgment dated 13.06.2007 passed by the
learned District Munsif, Gudiyatham, Vellore District, the plaintiffs,
preferred an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, Vellore
District in A.S.No.30 of 2007.
7.The learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, Vellore District
after analysing the entire evidence on record, upheld the findings of the
trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs. Now the second
appeal is filed by the plaintiffs.
8.It is seen from the judgment recorded by both the Courts
below that the plaintiffs failed to establish their possession over the suit
property as cultivating tenants. The plaintiffs also admitted that their
petition before the Revenue authorities in T.R.A.No.15 of 1991 praying to
register their names as cultivating tenants of the suit property, was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1251 of 2008
dismissed. It is also seen from the findings recorded by both the Courts
below that the plaintiffs were not able to state the period of lease granted
in their favour. The Village Administrative Officer who was examined as
a witness on the side of the defendant, had deposed that the plaintiffs are
not residing in the house built on the suit property. Both the Courts below
after appreciating the evidence on record, had come to a conclusion that
the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property. They have also
given cogent and acceptable reasons in their judgments. The plaintiffs did
not even file Adangal extract to show that they have been cultivating the
suit property. On the other hand, the defendants had filed Adangal extract
(Ex.B9) for the faslis 1390-1406 to show that one Periyappa was in
possession of the suit property. In fact, the findings of both the Courts
below are based on facts and appreciation of evidence on record and there
is no good ground to hold that the findings of both the Courts below are
perverse. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent
findings of the Courts below as per Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1251 of 2008
9.Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
04.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mtl
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Gudiyatham, Vellore District.
2.The District Munsif Court,
Gudiyatham, Vellore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1251 of 2008
R. HEMALATHA, J.
mtl
S.A.No.1251 of 2008
04.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
