Kanagaraj vs S.Pauldurai
2021 Latest Caselaw 3070 Mad

                                                                           S.A.(MD)No.689 of 2020

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED : 09.02.2021

                                                    CORAM

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

                                          S.A.(MD)No.689 of 2020 and
                                           CMP(MD) No.7204 of 2020

                 Kanagaraj                                                       Appellant
                                                       Vs.

                 1.S.Pauldurai
                 2.Sambugeshwaran                                               Respondents

                 PRAYER:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure,
                 against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.No.140 of 2019, on the file of the
                 Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli dated 12.08.2020, reversing the judgment
                 and decree passed in O.S.No.318 of 2018, on the file of the II Additional
                 District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli dated 01.08.2019.


                                    For Appellant   : Mr.T.Selvan
                                    For Respondents : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai

                                              JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S.No.318 of 2018, who was able to convince the

trial Court to grant a Decree for injunction in his favour, upon reversal of the

said Decree by the Appellate Court in A.S.No.140 of 2019 has come up with

this Second Appeal.

http://www.judis.nic.in

S.A.(MD)No.689 of 2020

2.The Suit was laid by the plaintiff for the relief of injunction,

restraining the defendants from making any false complaint against him and

from interfering with his use and enjoyment of a mini bus, bearing Registration

No.TN 59 N 0261. According to the plaintiff, he had purchased the mini bus

from the defendants for a proper consideration. According to the plaintiff, the

first defendant had agreed to hand over the documents pertaining to the mini

bus, but he has not chosen to do so.The defendants taking advantage of the

non-execution of transfer of documents are attempting to interfere with the

possession of the mini bus, by giving false complaint to the police. Therefore,

the plaintiff sought for the relief of injunction.

3.The Suit was resisted by the defendants contending that they

never sold mini bus to the plaintiff. It is also stated that the plaintiff had taken

the possession of the mini bus illegally. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to

the relief of injunction.

4.At trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and one S.Masanam

was examined as PW.2. Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked on the side of the

plaintiff. The first defendant was examined as DW 1 and Ex.B1 and Ex.B 2

were marked on the side of the defendants.

http://www.judis.nic.in

S.A.(MD)No.689 of 2020

5.The learned trial judge upon consideration of the evidence on

record concluded that the plaintiff has proved the purchase of the mini bus

through Ex.A3 & Ex.A4, therefore, he is entitled to the relief of injunction

restraining the defendants from interfering with his enjoyment of the mini bus.

As regards, the other relief, namely, injunction restraining the defendants from

giving false complaint, the same was given up by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the

decree for injunction granted by the trial Court, the defendants preferred an

appeal in A.S.No.140 of 2019. The lower Appellate Court upon reconsideration

of the evidence on record, concluded that the plaintiff has not established the

case of the purchase projected by him. The Appellate Court also found that the

plaintiff has not taken any steps to prove Ex.A3 and Ex.A4, despite the same

having been denied by the defendants. Upon the above conclusion, the learned

Appellate Judge reversed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the suit.

Hence this Second Appeal.

6.Notice of motion was ordered on 23.12.2020. Heard

Mr.T.Selvan, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.G.Prabhu

Rajadurai, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

http://www.judis.nic.in

S.A.(MD)No.689 of 2020

7.Mr.T.Selvan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant

would vehemently contend that the Appellate Court was not right in concluding

that Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 would not disclose the contract of sale of the mini bus.

He would also point out that the defendants had admitted the possession of the

mini bus by the plaintiff and therefore the lower Appellate Court was not right

in reversing the decree granted by the trial Court. He would also point out that

the lower Appellate Court had not taken into account the fact that the plaintiff

has given up the first relief in the suit.

8.I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the

appellant. The Appellate Court had pointed out that as a plaintiff, the appellant

has not stated what was the consideration for the sale of the mini bus in the

plaint and that the appellant had purchased the mini bus from the first defendant

and the first defendant had received a sum of Rs.7 Lakhs. In support of his

case, the appellant has relied upon certain documents. Ex.A3 & Ex.A4, which

are two agreements dated 15.04.2017 and 10.06.2017. Ex.A3, dated 15.04.2017

is an agreement between the defendants and one Hariharasudan, for the sale of

the mini bus. Ex.A4, dated 10.06.2017 is an agreement between the said

Hariharasudan and the plaintiff for the purchase of the mini bus. Though Ex.A3

agreement contains endorsement to the effect that the first defendant had

http://www.judis.nic.in

S.A.(MD)No.689 of 2020

received a sum of Rs.4 Lakhs from the plaintiff, the lower Appellate Court

disbelived the same on two grounds. The first ground is that the Agreement is

not between the plaintiff and the defendants. The second ground is that the

defendants had denied the signature in Ex.A.3 and the plaintiff had not taken

any steps to prove the same. The Appellate Court had also taken into account

the fact that the plaint is silent on the total consideration and the claim of the

plaintiff that he had paid Rs.3 Lakhs, was not established by any tangible

evidence.

9.The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend

that the Appellate Court erred in overlooking the fact that the appellant had

given up the first relief and only sought for injunction restraining the

defendants from interfering with the possession of the mini bus and according

to him, since the defendants are admitted the possession by plaintiff, the

Appellate Court ought not to have refused the relief of injunction. I am unable

to countenance the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The

possession of the mini bus by the appellant/plaintiff must be proved to be legal

possession. It is found that the plaintiff has come to the Court with unclean

hands. The lower Appellate Court analysed the evidence. The plaintiff has not

proved his claim under Ex.A3. Once there is no transfer of ownership of the

http://www.judis.nic.in

S.A.(MD)No.689 of 2020

mini bus in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot seek injunction.

Therefore, I do not see any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for

the appellant. There is no question of law, much less a substantial question of

law in this appeal.

10. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed without being

admitted. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

09.02.2021

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vrn

To

1.The II Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil

2.The Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil

3.The Section Officer, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

http://www.judis.nic.in

S.A.(MD)No.689 of 2020

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

vrn

Judgment made in S.A.(MD)No.689 of 2020 and CMP(MD) No.7204 of 2020

Dated 09.02.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in