Kasilingam vs Admanathan
2021 Latest Caselaw 11432 Mad

                                                                         S.A.(MD).No.333 of 2021




                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED : 04.06.2021

                                                       CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

                                               S.A.(MD).No.333 of 2021

                     Kasilingam                       : Appellant / Appellant / Plaintiff

                                                       Vs.

                     Admanathan                       : Respondent / Respondent / Defendant

                                   PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. praying to
                     set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.11 of 2017, on the
                     file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Aranthangi, dated 18.10.2019,
                     concurrent the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.192 of 2004,
                     dated 07.09.2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi.


                                   For Appellant                : Mr.K.Baalasundharam


                                                   JUDGMENT

***********

The plaintiff, who lost before both the Courts below has

preferred the above Second Appeal before this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.(MD).No.333 of 2021

2. The appellant / plaintiff filed a suit seeking for the relief of

declaration and permanent injunction. The appellant based his claim on

the sale deed, dated 19.04.1999, executed by Velu and Kathiresan and

which was marked as Ex.A.2.

3. Both the Courts below after analysing the entire

documentary evidence came to a conclusion that the above said Velu and

Kathiresan did not have any title over the property. To come to such a

conclusion, both the Courts below analysed the title document, dated

18.05.1932, which was marked as Ex.A.1 and found that the property

that has been described therein was not correlated with the suit property.

4. Insofar as the possession is concerned, the Courts below

found that the property is a vacant land and the possession follows title.

Since the appellant did not establish the title, the Courts below came to

the right conclusion that the appellant is not in possession of the suit

property. The Courts below also took into consideration the fact that the

defendants had the patta in their favour during the Fasli years 1407 to

1414, which was marked as Ex.B.5 to Ex.B.12.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.(MD).No.333 of 2021

5. In the considered view of this Court, both the Courts below

have properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and this

Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings rendered by

both the Courts below. There is no substantial question of law involved

in this case and this Court cannot undertake the exercise of re-

appreciation of evidence which will be beyond the scope of a Second

Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C.

6. In the result, the Second Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

                                                                                     04.06.2021
                     Index    : Yes/No
                     Internet : Yes/No
                     tsg
                     To

1. The District Munsif Court, Aranthangi.

2. The Sub Court, Aranthangi.

3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. NOTE:

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.(MD).No.333 of 2021

is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J

tsg

Judgment made in S.A.(MD).No.333 of 2021

Dated:04.06.2021

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