Vaithiyalingam vs Karunakaran
2021 Latest Caselaw 1102 Mad

                                                                         S.A.(MD)No.20 of 2021

                            BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED : 19.01.2021

                                                     CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

                                            S.A.(MD)No.20 of 2021 and
                                             CMP(MD) No.143 of 2021

                      1.Vaithiyalingam
                      2.Saravanan                                             Appellants
                                                         Vs.

                      Karunakaran                                             Respondent

                      PRAYER:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil
                      Procedure, to call for records of the judgment and Decree passed in
                      A.S.No.38/2019, dated 07.08.2020, on the file of the learned Subordinate
                      Judge, Aranthangi confirming the judgment and Decree passed in
                      O.S.No.50 of 2014, dated 07.12.2018, on the file of the learned District
                      Munsif Court, Aranthangi.
                                         For Appellant   :Mr.K.Vamanan
                                                      ****
                                                   JUDGMENT

The defendants in O.S.No.50 of 2014, having suffered a

decree for permanent injunction at the hands of the Courts below, have

come up with this Second Appeal.

http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.20 of 2021

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming that he is the

owner of the suit property and on 25.01.2014, while he was doing certain

maintenance work in the suit property, the defendants attempted to

interfere with his possession.

3.The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the

plaintiff has entered into an agreement of sale, agreeing to convey a

portion of the suit property to the defendants on 06.06.2013. It is also

claimed that the suit has been engineered only to enhance the sale

consideration in the sale agreement. The defendants would specifically

admit the title and possession of the plaintiff in the written statement

itself.

4.At trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1. The second

defendant was examined as DW.1 and two other witnesses were

examined as DW.2 and DW.3. Exs.A.1 to A3 were marked on the side of

the plaintiff. Exs.B.1 Sale Agreement was marked on the side of the

defendants.

http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.20 of 2021

5. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned

trial judge concluded that the plaintiff has established his possession and

the defendants do not have any right over the suit property. On such

conclusion, the trial Court decreed the suit.

6.The Appeal filed by the defendants in A.S.No.38 of 2019

was dismissed by the Appellate Court, upon concurrence with the

findings of the trial Court. Hence, the Second Appeal.

7.Mr.K.Vamanan, the learned counsel for the appellants

would vehemently contend that the Courts below were not right in

decreeing the suit in the light of the fact that the plaintiff had entered into

an agreement for sale of the property. It is further contended by the

learned counsel for the appellants that the shops, subject matter of the

agreement were kept vacant. I am not convinced with the submissions of

the learned counsel for the appellant. The suit is for bare injunction based

on the title and possession. The defendants have entered into a sale

agreement with the plaintiff for sale of a portion of the suit property,

hence they cannot deny the title of the plaintiff. As far as the possession

http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.20 of 2021

of the suit property is concerned, the defendants, in their written

statement itself have stated that two shops are in possession of the

plaintiff. Once the title of the plaintiff is conceded and the possession of

the plaintiff is also conceded by the defendants in the written statement,

the Courts below cannot be faulted for decreeing the suit. I do not find

any question of law, much less a substantial question of law in this

appeal.

8.Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed without

being admitted. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petition is closed.

19.01.2021

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vrn

To

1.The Additional District Court, (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District

2.The Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

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

http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.20 of 2021

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

vrn

Judgment made in S.A.(MD)No.20 of 2021

Dated 19.01.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in