Mhaboobjan vs Khairunnissa
2021 Latest Caselaw 14079 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 14079 Mad
Judgement Date : 14 July, 2021

Madras High Court

Mhaboobjan vs Khairunnissa on 14 July, 2021

                                                                            S.A.(MD)No.1017 of 2009

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED: 14.07.2021

                                                     CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                           S.A.(MD)No.1017 of 2009
                                                    and
                                          C.M.P.(MD)No. 3295 of 2021

                   Mhaboobjan                     ... Appellant / 1st Respondent / Plaintiff

                                                     -Vs-


                   1.Khairunnissa
                   2.Mohammed Shah @ Babu
                   3.Hammeda Bi
                   4.Fareeda Begum                          ... Respondents 1 to 4 / Appellants /
                                                                  Defendants 1, 3, 5 and 6
                   5.Mohammed Yusuf
                   6.Rafeeq
                   7.Mohammed Ali
                   8.Sharmila @ Pappy                       ... Respondents 5 to 8 / Respondents /
                                                                  Defendants 2, 4, 7 & 8
                   PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
                   Code, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.162 of 2006,
                   dated 12.09.2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli,
                   reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.607 of 1998, dated
                   30.12.2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli.


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/


                   1/5
                                                                                S.A.(MD)No.1017 of 2009

                                           For Appellant       : Mr.S.Vinayak
                                           For Respondents : Mr.J.Bharathan
                                                                for Mr.T.R.Jeyapalan


                                                        JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S.No.607 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif

Court, Tiruchirappalli is the appellant in this second appeal.

2. The plaintiff had earlier filed R.C.O.P.No.421 of 1978 for evicting

the first respondent and others. Ultimately, the High Court vide order dated

21.03.1997 in C.R.P.No.6045 of 1989 held that the appellant herein must

work out his rights before the jurisdictional civil Court, since the

relationship of landlord – tenant had not been established. Availing the

liberty granted by the High Court, the appellant filed O.S.No.607 of 1998.

The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 30.12.2004.

Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed A.S.No.162 of 2006 before the

Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The appeal was allowed vide

order dated 12.09.2008. Challenging the same, this second appeal came to

be filed. The second appeal was admitted after framing the substantial

questions of law:-

“Whether the first appellate Court is right in coming to a conclusion that the appellant / plaintiff is not having title to the suit property?” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.A.(MD)No.1017 of 2009

3. During the pendency of this second appeal, certain subsequent

developments had taken place. In order to mark certain official

proceedings, the appellant had filed C.M.P(MD).Nos. 3295 of 2021 and

C.M.P.(MD)No.2429 of 2020.

4.The learned counsel on either side agree that since this subsequent

developments have to be taken note of, the matter can be remanded to the

file of the trial Court.

5.Recording the consensual submission made on either side, the

impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is set

aside and the matter is remanded to the file of the file of the trial Court.

I make it clear that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is also

set aside. The appellant is given liberty to file an application for amending

the plaint also. The additional evidence that is now sought to be adduced

can be filed by the appellant afresh before the trial Court. In other words,

the evidence already taken will very much remain on record. The

respondents are given liberty to file an additional written statement after the