Madras High Court
H.R.Gnanaprakash vs R.Ruckmaniammal on 24 February, 2021
S.A.No.1530 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S.A.No.1530 of 2008
1.H.R.Gnanaprakash
2.H.R.Gunasekaran ... Appellants
Vs.
R.Ruckmaniammal ... Respondent
Prayer: The second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C.
against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2008 passed in A.S.No.65 of
2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2007 passed in O.S.No.138
of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris.
For Appellants : Mr.T.R.Sathyamohan
For Respondent : No appearance
1/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.1530 of 2008
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree
dated 31.01.2008 passed in A.S.No.65 of 2007 on the file of the
Subordinate Court, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris, confirming the
judgment and decree dated 22.08.2007 passed in O.S.No.138 of 2005 on the
file of the District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their
rankings in the trial Court.
3.Considering the pleas and the materials placed on record, both oral
and documentary by the respective parties, it is found that the suit has come
to be laid by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of permanent
injunction.
4.The defendants in O.S.No.138 of 2005 are the appellants in the
second appeal.
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.1530 of 2008
5.According to the plaintiff, she is the absolute owner of the premises
known as "Mahalakshmi Nilayam" more fully described in the plaint
schedule and by way of the sale deed dated 14.12.1977, undivided 2/5th
share in the suit property had been acquired by the plaintiff's elder sister and
the plaintiff and the balance 3/5th undivided share in the suit property had
been acquired by the plaintiff and her elder sister by way of the release deed
dated 27.05.1981 and thus, according to the plaintiff, her sister the deceased
Sundariammal and she became the absolute owner of the suit property and
as her elder sister and her husband H.Rajan had no issues, H.Rajan had
married the plaintiff as the second wife and on the demise of Sundariammal,
it is only the plaintiff, who had succeeded to the undivided 1/2 share of her
sister in the suit property and accordingly, enjoying the same. The
defendants are the plaintiff's sons and managing the lodge in the suit
property on behalf of the plaintiff and however, they have been evading to
pay the income derived from the lodge in the suit property and despite the
repeated demands to handover the possession of lodge in the suit property,
the defendants are attempting to act against the interest of the plaintiff and
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.1530 of 2008
forced her to execute a settlement deed qua the suit property in their favour
and also attempted to assault the plaintiff so as to grab the suit property and
hence, the plaintiff was necessitated to lodge a police complaint against the
defendants and the defendants had also endeavoured to disturb the plaintiff's
possession and enjoyment of the suit property one way or the other and
hence, according to the plaintiff, she has been necessitated to lay the suit
against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction.
6.The defendants resisted the plaintiff's suit mainly contending that
the suit property among other properties had been purchased by Kartha of
the joint family viz. H.Rajan, the father of the defendants. Neither the
plaintiff nor her sister had any independent income to purchase the suit
property and other properties. Though the properties had been acquired in
the names of the plaintiff and her sister, the properties were always
considered, treated and enjoyed as the joint family properties and the
plaintiff has never been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property
at any point of time and it is false to state that the plaintiff had inherited the
undivided 1/2 share of her sister as claimed in the plaint and the case of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.1530 of 2008
plaintiff that the defendants had been running the lodge in the suit property
on behalf of the plaintiff is false and the plaintiff is not entitled to receive
any income from the suit property as claimed in the plaint. The defendants
and their brothers are the paramount owners of the suit property and taking
care of the same as well as the other properties and inasmuch as the plaintiff
has no exclusive right, title, possession and enjoyment of the suit property,
according to the defendants, the suit laid by plaintiff is not maintainable and
liable to be dismissed.
7.In support of the plaintiff's case, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to
A6 were marked. On the side of the defendants, no oral evidence has been
examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.
8.On an appreciation of the materials placed on record, both oral and
documentary and the submissions put forth by the respective parties, the
Courts below were pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff as
prayed for. Aggrieved over the same, the second appeal has been preferred
by the defendants.
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.1530 of 2008
9.When the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation
for the respondents. The respondents being called and remaining absent, set
exparte.
10.The case has been projected by the plaintiff claiming that she is the
absolute owner of the suit property. Per contra, according to the defendants,
the suit property is the joint family property and the plaintiff has not entitled
to claim the exclusive title to the suit property and in the panchayat held, the
plaintiff is held to be entitled only to receive the income from the suit
property and it is only the second defendant, who had been running the
lodge and the plaintiff has never been in the possession and enjoyment of the
suit property and the plaintiff had not interfered with their possession and
hence, the suit laid by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
11.Considering the materials placed on record, it is found that when
Exs.A1 & A2, the title deeds pertaining to the suit property are found to be
in the names of the plaintiff and her sister and when it is further noted that
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.1530 of 2008
considering the documents marked as Exs.A3 to A5, it is only the plaintiff,
who has been enjoying the suit property by paying tax, water charges etc.,
and accordingly, the defendants being the sons of the plaintiff, it is further
noted that the defendants are enjoying the lodge in the suit property only on
behalf of the plaintiff and controverting the abovesaid documentary evidence
projected on the part of the plaintiff, the defendants have not placed any
acceptable and reliable documents to evidence that they have any valid right
or title over the suit property and as held by the Courts below merely from
Exs.B1 to B3 and the plaintiff having admitted her signature only in the
abovesaid documents and when the plaintiff has disowned the contents of
the said documents, merely from Exs.B1 to B3 documents we cannot infer
or hold that the defendants had acquired a valid title to the suit property as
put forth by them. The defendants having failed to establish their claim of
title to the suit property in any manner and when the defendants have also
not entered into the witness box to explain and establish as to how they
claim title to the suit property and enjoying the suit property independently
in their own right and as above pointed out, Exs.B1 to B3 by themselves
would not confer any valid title, possession and enjoyment of the defendants
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.1530 of 2008
qua the suit property, the Courts below are found to be justified in rejecting
the defence version and upholding the plaintiff's case and as averred by the
plaintiff, the defendants being the sons of the plaintiff taking advantage of
the plaintiff's weakness are found to be endeavoring to grab the suit property
from the plaintiff one way or other and accordingly, the defendants have
endeavoured to disturb the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit
property, in such view of the matter, the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the
suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. Even
assuming for the sake of arguments that the plaintiff is only one of the
coowners of the suit property as sought to be projected by the defendants'
counsel during the course of arguments, as the coowner, the plaintiff is
entitled to maintain the suit for permanent inunction against the intruders or
trespassers, who are interefereing with her possession and enjoyment of the
suit property.
12.The reasonsings and conclusions of the Courts below for
upholding the plaintiff's case being found to be based on the proper
appreciation of the materials placed on record and purely on factual matrix
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.1530 of 2008
and when they are not shown to be in any manner perverse, illogical and
irrational, in my considered opinion, no substantial question of law is found
to be involved in this second appeal.
In conclusion, the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2008 passed in
A.S.No.65 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam,
The Nilgiris, confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2007 passed
in O.S.No.138 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Udhagamandalam,
The Nilgiris, are confirmed. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
Index : Yes/No 24.02.2021
Internet:Yes/No
sms
Copy to
1.The Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris.
2.The District Munsif, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris.
3.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.1530 of 2008
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
sms
S.A.No.1530 of 2008
24.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
