Madras High Court
Rasappan vs Salem Municipal Corporation on 5 January, 2021
S.A.No.1887 of 2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
S.A.No.1887 of 2000
Rasappan .. Appellant
/versus/
Salem Municipal Corporation, Salem, Rep. by
its Commissioner,
Municipal Building,
Salem - 1, Salem Town. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the
Judgement and decree dated 18.08.1999 and made in A.S.No.13 of 1999
on the file of Additional Sub Court, Salem, confirming the judgement and
decree dated 25.09.1998 and made in O.S.No.40 of 1990 on the file of II
Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.V.R.Rajasekaran
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
An unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. The plaintiff
filed the suit in O.S.No.40 of 1990 before the learned District Munsif,
Salem, for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the
defendant/Salem City Corporation from interfering with the plaintiff's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1887 of 2000
absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaint
proceeds on the basis that in an unapproved lay out, the plaintiff has
purchased the house plot and he apprehended that the defendant/Salem
City Corporation may take over the land for laying out the road and the
written statement has been filed and Paragraph Nos.6 & 7 of the written
statement are extracted here under;
" 6. This defendant has not taken any
steps to widen the road as alleged. This
defendant's staffs have never attempted to remove
any portion of the building of the plaintiff. The
alleged building of the plaintiff is itself an
unauthorised one.
7. The plaintiff has come forward with
this suit on imaginary allegations. The plaintiff
has filed this suit with intention to encroach the
land left for road with an order of injunction."
2. Based upon the EX.C1 and EX.C2 filed before the trial
Court, the learned District Munsif was pleased to dismiss the suit and the
same was confirmed in A.S.No.13 of 1999, Additional Sub-Court, Salem.
Hence, the Second Appeal.
3. Heard the counsel for the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1887 of 2000
4. Second Appeal was admitted. Though notice was served,
none appeared for the respondents. After hearing the counsel
Mr.V.R.Rajasekaran and also after perusing the Judgment passed by both
Courts below, I find that on mere apprehension, the plaintiff appears to
have filed the suit. Since the relief sought for permanent injunction on the
alleged cause of action, it is to be stated that the lawful possession by the
plaintiff in the suit property under the cause of action, which necessitate
the filing of the suit has not been proved for the grant of permanent
injunction.
5. However, in view of the stand taken by the defendant in the
written statement, as extracted supra, as there was no proposal for taking
the land of the plaintiff, I find that the stand of the respondent/defendant
in the written statement as extracted supra is correct. Since there was no
proposal, there cannot be any injunction against the appellant.
6. In this view of the above, Second Appeal is dismissed with
the above observations. No costs. Thus, it is hereby made clear that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1887 of 2000
plaintiff can file any appropriate legal proceedings in the event of the
defendant/respondent taking steps to evict the plaintiff.
05.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kmm
To
1. The Additional Sub Court, Salem.
2. The II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1887 of 2000
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
kmm
S.A.No.1887 of 2000
05.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
